Orlando Gay Night Club Shooting

[Mr. Desmond]

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

We are all spouting our opinions. No one better than any other. This is a difficult situation, and there is and was no easy solution.

You can't stop someone from exercising his first and second amendment rights even if they are mentally ill. Unless, they committed felonies in the past there is no way for us to legally prevent him from exercising those rights.

 

I hear a lot about rights -- I have disagreeable people and their attorneys spouting about their rights to me on a daily basis. lol.  I take it all in.  I ask, do they have those rights? And after lookng at a contract or agreement, should they have those rights? And then I draft a new contract eliminating more loopholes.

The question is posed to have you consider whether guns and severe mental illness in the same individual pose a potential threat to society and perhaps we should close that rights loophole. And then what is the standard for "severe" mental illness where we close off their rights to gun ownership? Or do we just state, that is the price of freedom?

If you state that is the price of freedom, then in effect, you are stating to victims, your right to be free to live is less than a mentally ill individual's right to a gun.... 

I believe many states do limit the right to ownership for individuals when they are committed - tough to do sometimes.

New York just passed a law that makes that standard lower ...

"Most states have laws that remove ownership rights from those a court has involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. But the New York law makes a court determination unnecessary. 

Instead, it requires mental health professionals to tell local officials if they believe a patient is likely to hurt himself or herself or someone else. Police officials would then be authorized to seize guns that person might own. The name of the patient would also be entered into state and national registries to prevent future firearm purchases. "

“People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” Cuomo said upon passage of the bill in January. “They could hurt themselves. They could hurt other people.”

[Lihu]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I hear a lot about rights -- I have disagreeable people and their attorneys spouting about their rights to me on a daily basis. lol.  I take it all in.  I ask, do they have those rights? And after looking at a contract or agreement, should they have those rights? And then I draft a new contract eliminating more loopholes.

The question is posed to have you consider whether guns and severe mental illness in the same individual pose a potential threat to society and perhaps we should close that rights loophole. And then what is the standard for "severe" mental illness where we close off their rights to gun ownership? Or do we just state, that is the price of freedom?

What is the test for mental illness? Can you quantify at what threshold is someone a legitimate threat?

There is no way for any of us to predict if a person will be a threat or not until they have already done something.

 

Quote

If you state that is the price of freedom, then in effect, you are stating to victims, your right to be free to live is less than a mentally ill individual's right to a gun.... 

It seems like this implies that the perpetrator already committed a felony, and is now no longer able to own a gun under many state and local laws.

 

Quote

I believe many states do limit the right to ownership for individuals when they are committed - tough to do sometimes.

There are laws against known felons to own guns. In fact, it is very difficult to obtain them legally. Illegally is a different matter, but gun laws do not affect the availability of guns, just the price.

 

Quote

New York just passed a law that makes that standard lower ...

"Most states have laws that remove ownership rights from those a court has involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. But the New York law makes a court determination unnecessary. 

Instead, it requires mental health professionals to tell local officials if they believe a patient is likely to hurt himself or herself or someone else. Police officials would then be authorized to seize guns that person might own. The name of the patient would also be entered into state and national registries to prevent future firearm purchases. "

“People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” Cuomo said upon passage of the bill in January. “They could hurt themselves. They could hurt other people.”

Sure, but these are already people who have had previous issues with the law/or authorities for mental health issues.

You can't make any determination of mental fitness prior to any recorded incident.

[Aguirre]

It's interesting to note that despite the increases in mass shootings (and some of that has been debated), gun violence in the US has significantly declined in the last quarter century.  And, when you see a statistic about gun deaths, roughly 2/3 of those are suicides, while roughly 1/3 are homicides, with a small rate of accidents. I think only roughly 3% of those deaths are from mass shootings.

I don't like guns. I feel uncomfortable when I'm around an armed cop. But I'm not a gun control advocate out of principle.  But I'll tell you what.  If you ever want to see the crazy scale cranked up to 11 visit a gun show.  Crrrraaaaaazzzzzzyyyy people.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Aguirre said:

It's interesting to note that despite the increases in mass shootings (and some of that has been debated), gun violence in the US has significantly declined in the last quarter century.  And, when you see a statistic about gun deaths, roughly 2/3 of those are suicides, while roughly 1/3 are homicides, with a small rate of accidents. I think only roughly 3% of those deaths are from mass shootings.

I don't like guns. I feel uncomfortable when I'm around an armed cop. But I'm not a gun control advocate out of principle.  But I'll tell you what.  If you ever want to see the crazy scale cranked up to 11 visit a gun show.  Crrrraaaaaazzzzzzyyyy people.

Okay, no argument, but don't confuse enthusiasm with crazy.

 

[saevel25]

Fixing the ISIS problem is not an easy question. Colbert had a great intro to his show last night. 

O'Reilly was on his show. I have to agree with O'Reilly on this one. There is no way to stop this. You can not stop someone who is determined enough to cause this sort of event. It's impossible to police. That is just the reality of the world we live in. This isn't a modern problem. Through out history you've had people who want to watch the world burn. 

I do think it's about time we admit this group is at war with western society, and many parts of the middle east who don't agree with their bastardized version of the Muslim faith. If ISIS is willing to attack the US, to bring terrorism to our shores, to hold hostage and attack US citizens overseas, then we need to strike back with our full military strength and our allies need to join us because ISIS isn't just attack the US alone.

1 minute ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Instead, it requires mental health professionals to tell local officials if they believe a patient is likely to hurt himself or herself or someone else. Police officials would then be authorized to seize guns that person might own. The name of the patient would also be entered into state and national registries to prevent future firearm purchases. "

First, this violates the doctor patient confidentiality. 

Second, this violates due process and a person's right against illegal search and seizure of their property. I foresee this going through many court battles. 

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I hear a lot about rights -- I have disagreeable people and their attorneys spouting about their rights to me on a daily basis. lol.  I take it all in.  I ask, do they have those rights? And after lookng at a contract or agreement, should they have those rights? And then I draft a new contract eliminating more loopholes.

The question is posed to have you consider whether guns and severe mental illness in the same individual pose a potential threat to society and perhaps we should close that rights loophole. And then what is the standard for "severe" mental illness where we close off their rights to gun ownership? Or do we just state, that is the price of freedom?

If you state that is the price of freedom, then in effect, you are stating to victims, your right to be free to live is less than a mentally ill individual's right to a gun.... 

I believe many states do limit the right to ownership for individuals when they are committed - tough to do sometimes.

New York just passed a law that makes that standard lower ...

"Most states have laws that remove ownership rights from those a court has involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. But the New York law makes a court determination unnecessary. 

Instead, it requires mental health professionals to tell local officials if they believe a patient is likely to hurt himself or herself or someone else. Police officials would then be authorized to seize guns that person might own. The name of the patient would also be entered into state and national registries to prevent future firearm purchases. "

“People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” Cuomo said upon passage of the bill in January. “They could hurt themselves. They could hurt other people.”

As a gun owner I typically oppose any laws the NY passes or attempts to pass regarding guns but I do support removing guns from mentally ill as defined above.  I also think anyone that is cleared by a psychiatrist should then be able to become a gun owner again.  

[Mr. Desmond]

19 minutes ago, Lihu said:

What is the test for mental illness? Can you quantify at what threshold is someone a legitimate threat?

There is no way for any of us to predict if a person will be a threat or not until they have already done something.

 

It seems like this implies that the perpetrator already committed a felony, and is now no longer able to own a gun under many state and local laws.

 

There are laws against known felons to own guns. In fact, it is very difficult to obtain them legally. Illegally is a different matter, but gun laws do not affect the availability of guns, just the price.

 

Sure, but these are already people who have had previous issues with the law/or authorities for mental health issues.

You can't make any determination of mental fitness prior to any recorded incident.

I am merely asking questions, and you seem to imply/infer facts that do not exist to fit your view. I did not mention felons, I did mention the mentally ill - so if a suspect fitting a profile with certain acts and verbal behavior that would get him on a no-fly list, then he should not be the target of surveillance, or if on a no fly list, should we remove him from having guns -- or do we treasure his rights more than potential victims? Rhetorical question... food for thought.

[14ledo81]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I am merely asking questions, and you seem to imply/infer facts that do not exist to fit your view. I did not mention felons, I did mention the mentally ill - so if a suspect fitting a profile with certain acts and verbal behavior that would get him on a no-fly list, then he should not be the target of surveillance, or if on a no fly list, should we remove him from having guns -- or do we treasure his rights more than potential victims? Rhetorical question... food for thought.

Potential is the key word here.  We would be restricting rights based on an unknown possibility?

[CarlSpackler]

This was a horrible thing that happened. I will never understand what drives people to do such things. As I am preparing to move to Orlando next month, people are asking me if I'm sure I want to move in light of this event. Others are tying to convince me that I will be eaten by an alligator if when I move, but that is just as ridiculous.

Reports are saying that he cased Disney Springs, a place that my wife and I visited while we were there for my interview. It could have been us. The bottom line is that this could have happened in any city. It will most likely happen in another city soon. These people are determined to kill us in any way they can whether by gun, knife, stone, fire, water, etc. I can't help but think in these scenarios how many lives could be saved if there were a few armed citizens who were licensed to carry firearms anywhere present.

Just my thoughts. Prayer for the families and friends of the victims.

[newtogolf]

6 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

This was a horrible thing that happened. I will never understand what drives people to do such things. As I am preparing to move to Orlando next month, people are asking me if I'm sure I want to move in light of this event. Others are tying to convince me that I will be eaten by an alligator if when I move, but that is just as ridiculous.

Reports are saying that he cased Disney Springs, a place that my wife and I visited while we were there for my interview. It could have been us. The bottom line is that this could have happened in any city. It will most likely happen in another city soon. These people are determined to kill us in any way they can whether by gun, knife, stone, fire, water, etc. I can't help but think in these scenarios how many lives could be saved if there were a few armed citizens who were licensed to carry firearms anywhere present.

Just my thoughts. Prayer for the families and friends of the victims.

You're right, at this point in time, there is no assurance of safety anywhere.  Anyone can lose it and decide to try to kill as many people as possible with any means they like.  You can cower in a bunker and live in fear or go about living your life and just hope you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time.  At least in Florida you can conceal carry in most locations and have an opportunity to defend yourself should you need to.  

[drmevo]

 

10 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I can't help but think in these scenarios how many lives could be saved if there were a few armed citizens who were licensed to carry firearms anywhere present.

I'd just like to reiterate the fact that there was an armed citizen that engaged the shooter, plus two more that joined him shortly after the firefight started, according to reports.  So, I guess you have your answer.

@newtogolf, did you catch my question on the last page?

[Mr. Desmond]

35 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Potential is the key word here.  We would be restricting rights based on an unknown possibility?

When he can't fly, that may or may not say something (heck, I think the musician Cat Stevens was on a no fly list). Some argue that being on that list should restrict your gun rights. I think it's a slippery slope. I don't know the standards for the no fly list, but I'd require at least a full review and a list of standards, and not a review board that rubber stamps ... tough issues... back to golf.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, drmevo said:

Nah, I disagree. We shouldn't bend to their will. 

I get your point about Sharia Law and agree it has way more support than many people care to admit, but where do you get those figures?

Also, they WANT to be called ISIS.  Better to call them a name they hate, no? 

I'd seen a number of videos where I'd heard those numbers and to verify I did a search on google.  

[CarlSpackler]

3 minutes ago, drmevo said:

 

I'd just like to reiterate the fact that there was an armed citizen that engaged the shooter, plus two more that joined him shortly after the firefight started, according to reports.  So, I guess you have your answer.

I missed that. I will have to go back and review.

[Lihu]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I am merely asking questions, and you seem to imply/infer facts that do not exist to fit your view. I did not mention felons, I did mention the mentally ill - so if a suspect fitting a profile with certain acts and verbal behavior that would get him on a no-fly list, then he should not be the target of surveillance, or if on a no fly list, should we remove him from having guns -- or do we treasure his rights more than potential victims? Rhetorical question... food for thought.

Not implying anything, the word "victim" has a specific connotation:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim

Now you are using "potential victim", which is kind of indeterminate. I don't know how we could predict that a person is a potential perpetrator?

[newtogolf]

Just saw a report that the gun the shooter used wasn't an AR-15 but a Sig Sauer MCX carbine that is capable of shooting multiple caliber rounds depending on how it's configured.  

[drmevo]

16 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'd seen a number of videos where I'd heard those numbers and to verify I did a search on google.  

Right, from where?  Those were specific numbers so they must have specific sources.

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Just saw a report that the gun the shooter used wasn't an AR-15 but a Sig Sauer MCX carbine that is capable of shooting multiple caliber rounds depending on how it's configured.  

Seems more reasonable, a carbine makes more sense in a crowd. It's actually the picture that was posted earlier.