California active shooter.....Here we go again...

[P7M13]

I don't believe in gun control, but definitely believe in people control. If I had to take a mental evaluation with my cpl every 5 years, I would. I guess the question is why wouldn't you?

Absolutely not. Personal experiences to back up why you wouldn't want that, inappropriate here.

Embrace Dark Ages II?

The crusades are coming to us this time.

 

[arakboss]

To further stir the bubblegum, and disclaimer: these thoughts don't represent my own, but are meant to incite conversation.

I think his point was that the barrier to owning a non lethal feline shouldn't be higher than the barrier to owning firearms.

Yes, there's other ways to kill, but firearms are damn effective at it.

I don't believe in gun control, but definitely believe in people control. If I had to take a mental evaluation with my cpl every 5 years, I would. I guess the question is why wouldn't you?

I should probably just stick to classifieds.

Holy capola, I hope there aren't many others who share your view on regular mental health evaluations for CPL holders. I am pretty sure requiring a concealed carry license is gun control, requiring mental health evaluations would be more like big brother control.

Let's not encouarge the antis, they already at chomping at the bit to further restrict our freedoms.

 

[9ssxx3332fs]

Holy capola, I hope there aren't many others who share your view on regular mental health evaluations for CPL holders. I am pretty sure requiring a concealed carry license is gun control, requiring mental health evaluations would be more like big brother control.

Let's not encouarge the antis, they already at chomping at the bit to further restrict our freedoms.

Not my view, I had a disclaimer and everything! Just seeding the conversation.

Realistically, restrictions are on the horizon, like it or not, encouragement not required. If there's going to be rules, I think it may behoove us to be part of that dialog? Look at the joker that's about to be the head of alphabet club, cold dead hands may be outdated unless we actually mean it.

 

[Longwalkhome]

There is no end to some people who think you must submit to more laws and regulations to have your constitutional rights. The Second Amendment isn't just a right but written as a LIMITATION on government infringement of that right.

In kali where the murders occurred they have pages of laws and limitations on our rights and it may be those laws and limitations that got those 8 people killed because they carried no guns to defend themselves.

Those who demand more laws and restrictions create killing zones full of unarmed defenseless people.

 

[OldTengu]

It may have been mentioned, and I'm trying to find the video, but newsom was asked during a press conference something like "with the strictest gun control in the country, how did this happen?" And he just walked off.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Not my view, I had a disclaimer and everything! Just seeding the conversation.

Realistically, restrictions are on the horizon, like it or not, encouragement not required. If there's going to be rules, I think it may behoove us to be part of that dialog? Look at the joker that's about to be the head of alphabet club, cold dead hands may be outdated unless we actually mean it.

You can't have a dialog with hoplophobes.

 

[Howard1955]

 

[Hueco]

The problem with mental evaluations for buying guns is there is no clear definition of sane. I know people who think anyone who "needs" an AR15 or more than a box of ammo is insane. Now imagine if thats the guy doing your eval....
The last thing you want is to have to ask permission to exercise a right, at that point it becomes a privilege.

My biggest issue with a mental evaluation is that it just won't be effective. I mentioned it before but I will say it again...trying to do a mental health evaluation to determine if someone is prone to violence is the equivalent of modern day phrenology. You can't ask some magic set of questions or make someone look at some ink blots to determine if they are prone to violence. Aside from people who schizophrenic, or under other some other serious mental ailment, it will be near impossible to divine someones potential for violence unless they willingly give up that information. While these people who commit these spree shootings have serious issues, they seem like the type of things that you can't just determine from some screening. Imagine what the questions would be like for one of these things "Do you have violent thoughts?"..."do you have angry outburts?"..."do you fantasize about violence?" No one who want's to commit these acts is going to willingly give up that information.

I'm curious if either of you guys has actually had an eval done? Not just an hour with a therapist but a formal intake and evaluation?

Well, I have.

My wife is in school to be a clinical psychologist who will primarily be working with felons. As a part of that training and education, I've had every test one could conduct done on me (multiple times, both drunk and sober for my own amusement).

I can tell you that yes, after examining your history and putting you through ~4-8 HOURS of intake questionnaires, exams, and tests...they'll have a good idea of you and your proclivities. Yes, there is a definition for "sane" or at least "unlikely to commit violence."

The problem, IMO, is that this is a profession just like any other. Some people are very good at their job: they remove their own biases and apply the science and they do so well. Others...well, this is Oregon and psych programs tend to be very, very liberal leaning.

We cannot draft policy based on the examples set by the best people.

 

[Dinglenutz]

Worked example of a similar thing: Private Manning had a security clearance.

 

[3MTA3]

I'm curious if either of you guys has actually had an eval done? Not just an hour with a therapist but a formal intake and evaluation?

Well, I have.

My wife is in school to be a clinical psychologist who will primarily be working with felons. As a part of that training and education, I've had every test one could conduct done on me (multiple times, both drunk and sober for my own amusement).

I can tell you that yes, after examining your history and putting you through ~4-8 HOURS of intake questionnaires, exams, and tests...they'll have a good idea of you and your proclivities. Yes, there is a definition for "sane" or at least "unlikely to commit violence."

The problem, IMO, is that this is a profession just like any other. Some people are very good at their job: they remove their own biases and apply the science and they do so well. Others...well, this is Oregon and psych programs tend to be very, very liberal leaning.

We cannot draft policy based on the examples set by the best people.

Good information. I'm probably more concerned with medical industry agendas and how that would be reflected in diagnosis. We keep hearing more and more of "gun violence epidemic" where they relate politics in medical terms to give themselves control over non medical issues. I have 20+ years in the medical industry and know for a fact it's about a lot more than medicine, and there are many who have the same ego and arrogance issues of our worst politicians.

A second concern is liability. Providers and institutions are constantly being sued in tort claims. Liability has been affecting diagnosis for a very long time. I remember in a college level psychology class discussing a case where several students with no previous mental health issues as an exercise got evaluations. Every singly one got a diagnosis of "schizophrenic in remission". Even though all were "normal" (whatever that means) the providers did not want to take the risk of a future lawsuit.

Medical professionals are people with the same faults and motivations as everybody else.

 

[Howard1955]

It's all been done before.

"Prove that you are worthy to own a gun."

"Prove that you are a responsible citizen."

Etc, etc...

 

[P7M13]

The problem, IMO, is that this is a profession just like any other. Some people are very good at their job: they remove their own biases and apply the science and they do so well. Others...well, this is Oregon and psych programs tend to be very, very liberal leaning.

While not saying that the aphorism applies to your wife, of the therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists I have known personally and professionally, the generalism, "mental health workers gravitate to the job to understand their own mental issues," holds true for many of those I mention. Some were flat out whack.

 

[Knobgoblin]

For a person whos never been convicted true. But the majority of violent criminals have a violent history many of them have been convicted for. Yet we continue to let them walk....

Documented violent criminals don't seem to be the animal we are discussing here.

This guy is , straight arrow, underachieving, hard working, never missed a day at work.
So one day it's just too much and...

 

[Xaevian]

How does this happen? Watch the movie Falling Down, a surprisingly accurate depiction of the ultimate bad day.

 

[albin25]

When the working definitions of, "sane", 'dangerous", "anti-social", etc.... are controlled by the Government and/or those who are firmly under it's control...
... eventually even "brushing your teeth after every meal" becomes a symptom of Psychosis, and a reason to deny rights if a Gov approved/licensed "officially interested party" notices you have a nice smile.... oh, and if you won't smile when told to, obviously you should lose you rights due to you being excessively Paranoid.

Next up..?.... losing the right to vote because you "might" misuse it due to you're determined to clinically be a "Conseranoid Karenphobic".

 

[Stomper]

as an old man, much older than glock handgun, I have pondered and opined the subject for many decades. Over the years the question is "what's different now?" The answer is....opinion of course.

In that context, there's only one thing that remains the same…. Everyone has (or had) a sphincter, and they all smell (or smelled) like roses.

OK, that's technically two things, but you get my drift.

 

[Stomper]

How does this happen? Watch the movie Falling Down, a surprisingly accurate depiction of the ultimate bad day.

The thing about the character in that movie is that inside he was always that sociopathic killer, he just allowed it to finally uncork.

 

[CRBMoA]

The thing about the character in that movie is that inside he was always that sociopathic killer, he just allowed it to finally uncork.

And although I do not wholly endorse the premise, I do believe MD is a type of 'everyman' that subtly teaches the lesson that any of us could 'snap' if given the right circumstances.

Like I said - I do not believe that to be true.

 

[Longwalkhome]

In that context, there's only one thing that remains the same…. Everyone has (or had) a sphincter, and they all smell (or smelled) like roses.

OK, that's technically two things, but you get my drift.

People see things differently and one man's truth is another man's lie. Opinions are all we have left now days and folks just want to argue theirs. Living through your own history you see the things pumped into your tv as truth, was it?

Old folks with good memories can tell you whats different today but ask yourself what difference will it make knowing it?

 

[AnOregonian]

This is all a great example of why it's hard to have a conversation on this topic, just imagine how convoluted it must be when its had between liberal politicians... I say all these things because we're at a headway here and I wish we had more of the 2A community offering constructive ideas. We're at a headway here, been approaching it for years, legislature is going to get passed at some point; and we need to make sure that legislature makes sense and is something we can all live with! If the democrats have their way what we're going to end up with is bans aimed at gear, which would seriously suck. We need to meet in the middle and show them the proper way to approach this whole issue isn't to ban gear but increase our ability to keep it out of dangerous hands.

"If you intend to keep dangerous things out of peoples hands.... well good luck with that idea"
I get why you say this, but it's not what I mean. I don't want to keep dangerous things out of peoples hands, as long as they aren't dangerous hands, I want to keep dangerous hands off of specific things. Yeah sure the black market will always be there. But some simple things could be done to make it easier to identify and flag people who aren't fit to own a firearm. Like a day class on safety and ownership, a questions and answer face to face, idk, just something to check that they're not an obviously deranged maniac. If it stops even a few of these mass shootings I think it would be worth it.

"I would reply that there is no constitutional right to own a cat, so the barriers to entry in the cat ownership realm do not apply here at all."
Lol, you're right of course, but that's besides the point I'm trying to make. Just trying to illustrate that even for something as low stakes as acquiring a pet they ask a few basic questions to verify you're not some sort of absolute jabroni. Idk the solution here but the best way for us to avoid the bullbubblegum bans is to meet at the table and propose some alternative ideas. All I'm doing is trying to promote some constructive thought on the subject. If legislature that we can live with isn't proposed then what we're going to end up with is a bans on everything that scares old man Biden's heard of sheeple.