Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple

[Southern Patriot]

As for the shooter, it really isn't a surprise to learn that he was a US army veteran. The US army tends to attract a very poor class of people and doesn't do enough to look after the mental health of its personnel. The US military has a terrible culture, highlighted by the recent rape scandal. And then there are the high profile scandals we've seen over recent years, from ****ing on dead bodies, to the torture of prisoners, to stripping prisoners naked for photos, etc. The US military has the worst reputation in the western world.

Things like that make the news because they are the exception, not the rule. Instances of things like that are extremely rare, considering the vast number of people in the military. As for your "poor class of people", you are EXTREMLY misinformed: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/07/the-widening-gap-between-military-and-society/6158/#

[Aethec]

What? It makes perfect sense a criminal isn't going to rob or kill someone that might kill him.They always look for the easy targets. You don't have to draw a gun on everyone, simple open carry of a handgun would let any potential criminal know that you're not one to be messed with. Also concealed carry as well. Criminal comes to rob or murder you suddenly you pull out a handgun that he thought you didn't have, the odds are no longer in his favor, he either has a choice to shoot it out with you or run and most likely the criminal will run. Most people murders and robbers are not willing to die. When A gun is pulled out they tend to flee. It happens all the time in store robberies where the criminal has a gun once a second gun is introduced they tend to flee.

You mentioned rape. If someone points a gun at a woman's head, do you seriously expect her to reach into her pocket, take her gun and shoot the rapist while being threatened with a gun at point blank?

If someday a man comes into a store, graps his gun, points it at someone and asks the employees to give him money, will you seriously try to grab your gun and shoot him?

I'm quite surprised you say it happens all the time in store robberies as an argument. If you've been in multiple store robberies, how can you not admit the system has huge problems?

Say WHAT? Are you trying to claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of a crime?

You misunderstood me. I meant to say that if you weren't able to own that gun, the criminal probably wouldn't have one either.

Most crimes committed with a gun in the US are done with guns that were illegally obtained (stolen, bought on the street, etc.) or illegally in the person's possession (convicted felon, etc.). The only gun crime where the majority of the guns are legally owned would probably be suicide (yes, that is counted as gun crime in the US).

Funny you should say that, since in this case the gun was legally obtained.

The Aurora disaster was also caused by legal weapons. (source: http://www.inquisitr.com/281617/suspect-james-holmes-was-a-legal-gun-owner-police-say/ )

[Routerbad]

More than likely, the temple was a "gun free zone", just like the theater in Colorado. That plan works really well, doesn't it?

I think people forget that gun laws only prohibit law abiding citizens and not criminals. States with CWL are statistically less likely to have gun violence, notably because you never know who's packing. You also never see gun violence erupt in establishments that allow carried weapons. A gun is a tool, and just like a scalpel can be used in the defense or sustainment of life, or to the opposite end.

[HSoft]

You misunderstood me. I meant to say that if you weren't able to own that gun, the criminal probably wouldn't have one either.

Quite, because criminals are good law abiding citizens...oh wait :laugh:

[Routerbad]

You misunderstood me. I meant to say that if you weren't able to own that gun, the criminal probably wouldn't have one either.

This is a huge misconception. Criminals don't give a flying F*** about gun laws, and will obtain and use them to whatever nefarious end they have planned regardless.

[Southern Patriot]

Funny you should say that, since in this case the gun was legally obtained.

The Aurora disaster was also caused by legal weapons. (source: http://www.inquisitr...ner-police-say/ )

And those two incidents are the exceptions, not the rule. Which is why they make national (and international) news. If they were the common gang shooting or robbery, they wouldn't merit much more than a statement about it in the local newspaper or the nightly news.

[Routerbad]

And those two incidents are the exceptions, not the rule. Which is why they make national (and international) news. If they were the common gang shooting or robbery, they wouldn't merit much more than a statement about it in the local newspaper or the nightly news.

Quite right, the media never picks up on gang shootings where dozens are killed, or even border violence (unless they want to vilify a border patrol agent), but every one of these out of the ordinary shootings gets international attention.

[SupportGeek]

Funny you should say that, since in this case the gun was legally obtained.

The Aurora disaster was also caused by legal weapons. (source: http://www.inquisitr...ner-police-say/ )

Yea, the way things are presented in Aurora it was a legal purchase, but had the proper channels been followed by his psychiatrist, and he was put on a psychiatric hold AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, he would not have been able to legally purchase firearms.

It was a failure of the mental health system and enforcing the laws that they should be following with patients like him, not a failure of gun control. There are already laws on the books that mentally ill people may not possess firearms, but the mental health professional dealing with him did not do her job, nor follow the law. But lets continue to blame the firearm involved, obviously it just jumped up and pulled its own trigger right?

[FlintyV]

And those two incidents are the exceptions, not the rule. Which is why they make national (and international) news. If they were the common gang shooting or robbery, they wouldn't merit much more than a statement about it in the local newspaper or the nightly news.

The sad thing is these kind of shootings in the US seem to become more of a regular occurrence.

[Mr. Gibs]

Yea, the way things are presented in Aurora it was a legal purchase, but had the proper channels been followed by his psychiatrist, and he was put on a psychiatric hold AS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, he would not have been able to legally purchase firearms.

It was a failure of the mental health system and enforcing the laws that they should be following with patients like him, not a failure of gun control. There are already laws on the books that mentally ill people may not possess firearms, but the mental health professional dealing with him did not do her job, nor follow the law. But lets continue to blame the firearm involved, obviously it just jumped up and pulled its own trigger right?

What if he bought guns before he was deemed mentally ill? (Just a question)

[Routerbad]

The sad thing is these kind of shootings in the US seem to become more of a regular occurrence.

They really aren't regular at all. This one was a blatant hate crime, the Aurora shooting was mosty caused by mental health professionals not exercising due diligence. There are laws that are intended to prevent these, but they aren't always going to prevent bad things from happening. People should be ready and able to defend themselves when these situations arise, and trusting beaurocrats to make more laws to make it all go away isn't the answer.

What if he bought guns before he was deemed mentally ill? (Just a question)

If he had and was added to the system they would have been confiscated. When a mental health professional suspects a person of potentially being a danger to themselves or others, they are supposed to report it to Police, who will check for firearm purchases and remove them. This is how it's supposed to work, but when someone doesn't do their job, the gun gets the bad rap.

[SupportGeek]

What if he bought guns before he was deemed mentally ill? (Just a question)

I appreciate the question, its refreshing to have one asked without the outright hostility and hand wringing that seems common from a specific few here.

To answer your question:

Once deemed mentally ill, or even put on a Psychiatric hold, that individual MUST surrender their firearms, either sell to an FFL (gun store) or turn them over to Law enforcement. They are known to the federal government as a "Prohibited person" they cannot even so much as touch a round of .22LR ammo without committing a felony.

[Wyn6]

I think people forget that gun laws only prohibit law abiding citizens and not criminals. States with CWL are statistically less likely to have gun violence, notably because you never know who's packing. You also never see gun violence erupt in establishments that allow carried weapons. A gun is a tool, and just like a scalpel can be used in the defense or sustainment of life, or to the opposite end.

Texas must be an exception here. We have had CCL for quite awhile. We also have an "in plain sight" law. Doesn't seem to have abated gun crime here much at all. It's unfortunate. This is not discounting that statistically crime is down across the country as a whole.

[Routerbad]

Texas must be an exception here. We have had CCL for quite awhile. We also have an "in plain sight" law. Doesn't seem to have abated gun crime here much at all. It's unfortunate. This is not discounting that statistically crime is down across the country as a whole.

Gun crime has been steadily dropping since Texas implemented the CCL in 1995, meanwhile, gun sales have been steadily increasing. CCL holders are less likely to be arrested for a crime, violent or otherwise.

[Mr. Gibs]

I appreciate the question, its refreshing to have one asked without the outright hostility and hand wringing that seems common from a specific few here.

To answer your question:

Once deemed mentally ill, or even put on a Psychiatric hold, that individual MUST surrender their firearms, either sell to an FFL (gun store) or turn them over to Law enforcement. They are known to the federal government as a "Prohibited person" they cannot even so much as touch a round of .22LR ammo without committing a felony.

See isn't that a problem? The guy has to willingly hand over his weapons, but say he doesn't and something like this or Aurora happens.

Also how long does the hold / deemed mentally ill hold last? I ask because my old roommate tried to commit suicide (with a knife), and he has anger issues, but then 2 years later he went and got himself a handgun (legally with the background check and all). So is it just until his psychiatrist says hes clear or like is it a set time?

[Routerbad]

See isn't that a problem? The guy has to willingly hand over his weapons, but say he doesn't and something like this or Aurora happens.

Also how long does the hold / deemed mentally ill hold last? I ask because my old roommate tried to commit suicide (with a knife), and he has anger issues, but then 2 years later he went and got himself a handgun (legally with the background check and all). So is it just until his psychiatrist says hes clear or like is it a set time?

Say he doesn't and he gets thrown in the clink. He has the option to sell them to an FFL so he can get money out of it, but he is required by law to give them up. Otherwise the police take them, forcibly if necessary.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to address your second part. You can't lock someone out of owning a firearm because someone implies they have anger issues. There are diagnosable criteria for anger management issues, and it is at the discretion of the mental health professional and law enforcement to determine whether he can be diagnosed and whether that diagnosis would merit confiscation and lock out of firearms, respectively.

So if he fit criteria laid out in the DSMIV it would be up to police to determine his eligibility for firearm purchase.

Because many people attempt suicide for many different reasons, It is customary for a person to be held for no more than 72 hours after an attempt or report (Baker Act in Florida, has different names everywhere). Once they've been cleared by a mental health professional, who may reccomend further treatment, they would be free to own firearms. I'm sure if I'm off on any of this it will be clarified by the many smart people here who watch these topics.

[FlintyV]

They really aren't regular at all. This one was a blatant hate crime, the Aurora shooting was mosty caused by mental health professionals not exercising due diligence. There are laws that are intended to prevent these, but they aren't always going to prevent bad things from happening. People should be ready and able to defend themselves when these situations arise, and trusting beaurocrats to make more laws to make it all go away isn't the answer.

If he had and was added to the system they would have been confiscated. When a mental health professional suspects a person of potentially being a danger to themselves or others, they are supposed to report it to Police, who will check for firearm purchases and remove them. This is how it's supposed to work, but when someone doesn't do their job, the gun gets the bad rap.

So you wouldn't call shootings like these a regular occurrence?

July 2012 - 12 dead - 58 wounded

April 2012 - 7 dead - 3 wounded

October 2011 - 8 dead - 1 wounded

September 2011 4 dead - several wounded

January 2011 - 6 dead - 14 wounded

April 2009 - 13 dead

March 2009 - 11 dead

December 2008 - 9 dead

December 2007 - 8 dead - 5 wounded

April 2007 - 32 people dead - many wounded

March 2005 - 5 dead

April 1999 - 13 dead - many wounded

October 1991 - 23 dead

August 1986 - 14 dead

July 1984 - 21 dead

February 1983 - 14 killed

August 1966 - 15 dead - 32 wounded

And like I said it seems like it's becoming more of an occurrence.

[SupportGeek]

See isn't that a problem? The guy has to willingly hand over his weapons, but say he doesn't and something like this or Aurora happens.

Also how long does the hold / deemed mentally ill hold last? I ask because my old roommate tried to commit suicide (with a knife), and he has anger issues, but then 2 years later he went and got himself a handgun (legally with the background check and all). So is it just until his psychiatrist says hes clear or like is it a set time?

The government already knows about any handguns you have, at that point they probably have RS/PC to check for other firearms. Either way as I mentioned above, its a felony to possess even ammo, much less firearms at that point.

Generally a Psychiatric hold must be cleared by the courts Federally its a lifetime firearms ban, is it possible your old roommate was never put on a hold?

[Routerbad]

So you wouldn't call shootings like these a regular occurrence?

July 2012 - 12 dead - 58 wounded

April 2012 - 7 dead - 3 wounded

October 2011 - 8 dead - 1 wounded

September 2011 4 dead - several wounded

January 2011 - 6 dead - 14 wounded

April 2009 - 13 dead

March 2009 - 11 dead

December 2008 - 9 dead

December 2007 - 8 dead - 5 wounded

April 2007 - 32 people dead - many wounded

March 2005 - 5 dead

April 1999 - 13 dead - many wounded

October 1991 - 23 dead

August 1986 - 14 dead

July 1984 - 21 dead

February 1983 - 14 killed

August 1966 - 15 dead - 32 wounded

And like I said it seems like it's becoming more of an occurrence.

I'd like to see the source, and context of this list. Like I said before, mass shootings are not rare at all, but are typically not reported because it's not sensational enough to make international news. Basically, if it doesn't further the outlet's agenda, it doesn't get reported. The aurora shooting got international attention and comments from POTUS. When is the last time he was asked about MS13? When is the last time CNN or MSNBC put any stories about MS13 on air? They won't because those stories make people want MORE guns. Stories about troubled youth make people start asking questions about gun control. Even this story, a lone gunman with an axe to grind, make people question whether our gun policies are strong enough.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind 17 incidents over 50 years is not what I would consider regular.

The government already knows about any handguns you have, at that point they probably have RS/PC to check for other firearms. Either way as I mentioned above, its a felony to possess even ammo, much less firearms at that point.

Generally a Psychiatric hold must be cleared by the courts Federally its a lifetime firearms ban, is it possible your old roommate was never put on a hold?

Unlkely someone would be put on a hold for simply attempting suicide. Unless there are deeper mental issues the guy is struggling against it wouldn't make any sense to go that length.

[HSoft]

So you wouldn't call shootings like these a regular occurrence?

March 2005 - 5 dead

April 1999 - 13 dead - many wounded

October 1991 - 23 dead

August 1986 - 14 dead

July 1984 - 21 dead

February 1983 - 14 killed

August 1966 - 15 dead - 32 wounded

Not really when there are years inbetween them.

And like I said it seems like it's becoming more of an occurrence.

July 2012 - 12 dead - 58 wounded

April 2012 - 7 dead - 3 wounded

October 2011 - 8 dead - 1 wounded

September 2011 4 dead - several wounded

January 2011 - 6 dead - 14 wounded

April 2009 - 13 dead

March 2009 - 11 dead

December 2008 - 9 dead

December 2007 - 8 dead - 5 wounded

April 2007 - 32 people dead - many wounded

Yes it does appear to be happening slightly more frequently.

[SupportGeek]

So you wouldn't call shootings like these a regular occurrence?

17 incidents in 46 years?

No.

[FlintyV]

17 incidents in 46 years?

No.

The list I quickly threw together is no way extensive and I'd assume there are far more I've missed. I'd consider 5 6 shootings in the last 2 years pretty regular.

[Bryan R.]

Unemployment is also ridiculously high coupled with the terrible economy that is barely more than stagnation. As a country, we are not healthy and in bad times, there is indeed an increase in crime. Perhaps we should focus more on real topics that have reverberating consequences for generations to come?

[chrisj1968]

The official narrative has collapsed. the lie that this was done my a lone gunman has been countered.

http://youtu.be/zYCurbSAsd4

[mudslag]

The official narrative has collapsed. the lie that this was done my a lone gunman has been countered.

http://youtu.be/zYCurbSAsd4

What exactly are you saying is a lie here? Many times right after an incident takes place the media/police/what ever don't always have the correct info so what gets reported may not always be correct but saying something is a lie is saying that it's deliberate. Misinformation doesn't equate to a lie.