Shooting at Westgate in Glendale, AZ

Ok, now consider this

"Most of the research shows that people with mental illness are actually less likely than the general population to go on to shoot somebody else or to commit mass violence," said Dr. Jonathan Metzl, a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Medicine, Health, and Society at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. "To be honest, it's quite frustrating as a psychiatrist to have this kind of false narrative be perpetuated because it's a distraction from the story we should be telling."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-mental-illness-cant-predict-mass-shootings

Thats an intresting read. Dint knew Trump propose that same thing, but what the psychaitrist said made sense. My idea was based on personal expirience. Anyway, if that kind of screening wouldn't work because distress is unpredictable, at least a through background investigation with some kind of waiting period to do it correctly would be better than taking home the weapon the very same day. Someone who has a clean record would have nothing to worry about anyway.

Voting is not the same as buying a weapon. Like i said, the pursuit of freedom and happiness is also a constitutional right, yet if you screw up, you loose both freedom and voting rights. The same should go for weapons, its a right you should loose if you screw up with society and proven guilty, specially for something like homicide or rape IMO. A background check would not prevent 100% mass shooting, but its a way to making weapons less accessible than they are now in most states. Something gotta be done about this. I remember reading a while back some Vets were guarding high school armed with AR15's i thought that was a great idea too when i read it.
 
Thats an intresting read. Dint knew Trump propose that same thing, but what the psychaitrist said made sense. My idea was based on personal expirience. Anyway, if that kind of screening wouldn't work because distress is unpredictable, at least a through background investigation with some kind of waiting period to do it correctly would be better than taking home the weapon the very same day. Someone who has a clean record would have nothing to worry about anyway.

Voting is not the same as buying a weapon. Like i said, the pursuit of freedom and happiness is also a constitutional right, yet if you screw up, you loose both freedom and voting rights. The same should go for weapons, its a right you should loose if you screw up with society and proven guilty, specially for something like homicide or rape IMO. A background check would not prevent 100% mass shooting, but its a way to making weapons less accessible than they are now in most states. Something gotta be done about this. I remember reading a while back some Vets were guarding high school armed with AR15's i thought that was a great idea too when i read it.
My understanding of most spree shooters is that they spend a significant time planning and researching, weeks and months worth. I don’t see how a waiting period would make any difference and most of these guys had no priors which allowed them to pass background checks.
 
Yes, you are either free or you aren’t.


Most felons can vote. It varies state by state. I think 9 require the governor to restore rights but most state allow them to vote after the sentence is complete.
And yes, if they paid their debt they should have rights restored. If we felt they are that dangerous to society, they should remain locked up. You can thank Democratic policy that set sentencing guidelines in some states that a rapist can do less time than some lessor crimes.

In my mind, there are certain crimes and mindset that cannot be rehabilitated and will always be a dangerous person. Those people should do life without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apparition
My understanding of most spree shooters is that they spend a significant time planning and researching, weeks and months worth. I don’t see how a waiting period would make any difference and most of these guys had no priors which allowed them to pass background checks.

Point taken, that may be true in some cases, specially for someone without prior. But some of these shooters also act on impulse and lack of better judgment, in those cases is where the wait time would come in.

I would like a suggestion on how can we deal with nutjobs like this one:


https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...n-santiago-security-guard-20170214-story.html


“About a week earlier, on Nov. 7, Santiago had walked into the FBI office in Anchorage, appearing agitated and incoherent. He told agents he was having terroristic thoughts and believed he was being influenced by ISIS, according to an Anchorage Police Department report.
He had a Walther 9mm pistol in his car. Santiago allowed police to confiscate the gun "to prevent it from being stolen" and officers escorted him to Providence Alaska Medical Center for a psychological evaluation.
He was then transferred to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and released November 14.
The following day, he was fired.
On December 8, Anchorage Police returned Santiago's firearm to him”

Lets say he dint shoot up that FL airport, how many similar cases might be out there just waiting for the right time to go all out. Having quick access to weapons either legally or illegally is part of the problem.

Maybe at the time he bought the gun he dint have any priors. But look what happened later. Thats why i believe the background check could be a deterrent along with some type of screening every so often could help in lowering some of these shootings.

That FL shooting could have been prevented with some common sense on behalf of the authorities.
 
Point taken, that may be true in some cases, specially for someone without prior. But some of these shooters also act on impulse and lack of better judgment, in those cases is where the wait time would come in.

I would like a suggestion on how can we deal with nutjobs like this one:


https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...n-santiago-security-guard-20170214-story.html


“About a week earlier, on Nov. 7, Santiago had walked into the FBI office in Anchorage, appearing agitated and incoherent. He told agents he was having terroristic thoughts and believed he was being influenced by ISIS, according to an Anchorage Police Department report.
He had a Walther 9mm pistol in his car. Santiago allowed police to confiscate the gun "to prevent it from being stolen" and officers escorted him to Providence Alaska Medical Center for a psychological evaluation.
He was then transferred to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute and released November 14.
The following day, he was fired.
On December 8, Anchorage Police returned Santiago's firearm to him”

Lets say he dint shoot up that FL airport, how many similar cases might be out there just waiting for the right time to go all out. Having quick access to weapons either legally or illegally is part of the problem.

Maybe at the time he bought the gun he dint have any priors. But look what happened later. Thats why i believe the background check could be a deterrent along with some type of screening every so often could help in lowering some of these shootings.

That FL shooting could have been prevented with some common sense on behalf of the authorities.
And people specifically called the FBI warning about the Parkland shooter. Seems our problem is the piss poor jobs done by our authorities.
 
Maybe more regulated than buying a gallon of milk, but one of the most heavily regulated things in this country? Nah.

Name something else where every time you purchase it you have to prove you are not a convicted felon.

I'll wait.

And that's not even going into all the red tape gun manufacturers and dealers have to deal with every day.
 
Last edited:
@Jramos013, just about everything you're advocating for is already in place. That background check does include mental health issues. There are a number of "he's nuts" kind of things that can get in there and can prevent you from buying a gun.

If you want to expand it from where it is now you run into issues of due process. Stripping someone of their rights because the cops feel like he might be a potential threat is not a road I want to go down.

As for waiting periods it's not federal law but many states have that already. Just look into all the hoops you have to jump through in CA. It was funny to watch the videos right after all the Coronavirus stuff hit and gun stores started selling out. All sorts of people who voted for the idiots that made these laws stormed the gun stores and demanded to buy a gun RIGHT NOW!!! Only to be told, nope, doesn't work that way. First you go to the police station and fill out a form. Then wait, probably up to six months, for a yes or no. Then go back to the store and fill out form 4473. Hopefully that comes back clean as well. Then take that back to the police station and get them to sign off on the sale. Then go back to the gun store and get your gun, maybe, MAYBE, in the same year you started that process.

But guns are too easy to get? Ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jramos013
@Jramos013, just about everything you're advocating for is already in place. That background check does include mental health issues. There are a number of "he's nuts" kind of things that can get in there and can prevent you from buying a gun.

If you want to expand it from where it is now you run into issues of due process. Stripping someone of their rights because the cops feel like he might be a potential threat is not a road I want to go down.

As for waiting periods it's not federal law but many states have that already. Just look into all the hoops you have to jump through in CA. It was funny to watch the videos right after all the Coronavirus stuff hit and gun stores started selling out. All sorts of people who voted for the idiots that made these laws stormed the gun stores and demanded to buy a gun RIGHT NOW!!! Only to be told, nope, doesn't work that way. First you go to the police station and fill out a form. Then wait, probably up to six months, for a yes or no. Then go back to the store and fill out form 4473. Hopefully that comes back clean as well. Then take that back to the police station and get them to sign off on the sale. Then go back to the gun store and get your gun, maybe, MAYBE, in the same year you started that process.

But guns are too easy to get? Ok.
In Minnesota in order to buy a handgun or “assault” rifle you have to submit your permission slip to your county sheriff for approval. This permission is good for one year then you resubmit.

If you have a carry permit, you submit your permission slip for that every five years for a carry permit, your carry permit works as the purchase permit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jramos013
@WallyWest Got it. Last time i lived in the states it sure seemed like you could buy them without a problem and walk out of the store with it. At least that was what i was told back in 2014 when i was interested in a Long Rifle in KY.

Well, good riddance if what i proposed is already in place. Left the US 5 years ago. Here in PR wait times before the new law could be between 90 days to 6months. You would need 3 witnesses to vouch for you and no criminal/ mental health record to just be able to own one. Everyone could apply and most would get it. Now with the new legislation they dropped it to 60days and no witnesses required. but the coronavirus happened and Still hasn't been implemented. I dint mind the requirements honestly. I just wish there could be a mechanism to prevent that legal weapons falls into the wrong hands. Not everyone is capable of handling firearms properly. I think we can all agree that banning them would not solve the problem, but there must be a solution.
 
Last edited:
If we could only confiscate all firearms, violence would end...

Evil men (and women) will always do evil deeds. Before the firearm was invented, there were still mass murders. Sharp sticks, rocks, fire, swords, knives, boiling oil, whatever an evil bastard can get their hands on.

And I loathe the liberal MSM talking point, "gun violence". It is violence, plain and simple. We don't label other forms of violence based on the tools used. "Truck violence", "explosive violence", "knife violence". It is all an effort by the liberals and MSM to erode our rights. They had hit a roadblock until recent years when they figured out they can do it in chunks, 50 chunks that is. At the state level, 2nd Amendment rights have been under the biggest assault in history with much less push back because of human nature. Many people don't care if it is not happening to them directly and it is difficult to fight legislators in another state that you can't vote in.

I can tell you for a fact that many liberals that decided to buy their first firearm in the recent covid gun store panic were shocked at the regulations and restrictions involved in purchasing a firearm. They were told by the MSM and their democrat cohorts that it is easier to buy a gun than a book. That is why I don't give a flying rats ass what the polls say "most Americans support". Polls are mostly about how well the media is getting their bullshit narrative and ideals across to the people. The media loves polls.

Another false narrative; "do you really think you would stand a chance against the U.S. military". If there is a tyrannical government, yes. Military and law enforcement take an Oath. Which side do you think they will be on? I have a pretty good idea.

Background checks: The majority of states use the FBI NICS for checks. It takes about 5 seconds for them to know who you are, if you have a record and if you have been mentally adjudicated by a court of law. If there is something in question, they issue a delay which gives them 3 business days to look into it further. You cannot walk out with a firearm. By a previous posters reason, if you get pulled over, you should be detained for several days to make sure law enforcement can do a thorough background check. You may be a wanted fugitive, or maybe even making plans to shoot up a Walmart.

There is much misinformation in this thread as well as some very accurate information. Misinformation is a danger to our republic and one of the MSM liberals main weapons. THAT should be banned.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, pointing a 223 at a criminal had the same level of intimidation as in the old days, when I'd rack a round in the Remington 870...….made them stop in their tracks.

Good memories, thanks. Well most of the time anyway
🇺🇸 Ray
Yep....racking a round in the 870 does get a bad guys attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WWII Jeeper
@WallyWest Got it. Last time i lived in the states it sure seemed like you could buy them without a problem and walk out of the store with it. At least that was what i was told back in 2014 when i was interested in a Long Rifle in KY.

You can in some states, for the most part, just walk in and buy one. Form 4473 and background check is federal law that you deal with in all states, the rest is up to state and local laws. In my state, PA, nothing much in the way. In others it's a very lengthy process especially for a first time buyer. As many people wanting to buy a gun for the first time recently discovered.

It's a complicated mess of a stalemate between the gun banners and the 2nd amendment folks. The bottom line is the laws only affect the law abiding. Criminals don't shop at gun stores, don't care about laws, and have no trouble buying a gun if they want to. No law will change that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ2 and Jramos013