Crime Thousand Oaks: At least 12 dead in mass shooting at California bar. Attacker also dead

[nac386]

Who is blaming? I own a sig p239 with hogue grips and a muzzle loader. There are lots of instances where a mental health evaluation would have prevented someone from buying a gun. Do you think someone with known suicidal tendencies should be allowed to own a gun? And what is currently done today to prevent such a person from buying a gun?

I own a couple myself. Just because somebody likes guns, owns guns, or likes to shoot guns, does not mean that person cannot believe we need to control who buys them more effectively. Or at least be willing to have a conversation about it without the histrionics from both sides.

 

[vengeful]

Yet again we see Coulter's law in effect. In the synagogue shooting or Dylan Roof or that shooting in Texas, the identity of the suspect is out there in about 30 minutes. The media have sources in law enforcement who know this stuff right away when the suspect is killed or caught. And yet when the suspect is Middle Eastern or black, it takes hours and hours for the identity to be released. And no one else in the press acknowledges this little detail.

So the killer isn't white?

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

I’m not on the right or the left, but my entire family is right wing and a lot of people where I live.

I have yet to meet a single person anti background checks for guns. Have you? You realize background checks already exist on a federal and state level? So what is there to vote down? There is no harder place to legally get a gun than California.

Yea background checks seem to be pretty well accepted at this point, what about mental health evaluation?

 

[SRN]

CBS said he had a 45 handgun.

edit: Suspect confirmed dead, no name yet.

 

[Clear Winner]

Just re-read my posts beyond the first sentence. It would need to be a case by case basis where appropriate, and the idea is that it could potentially compel families to take their blinders off and do whatever they can to address issues with disturbed family members before it spirals completely out of control rather than to just ignore reality and expect society to deal with these lunatics

When it comes to ghetto kids falling in with gangs and violence many of us have no problem blaming the family for neglect (often appropriately imo), I believe the same could apply to some if these mass shooters

Apologies if I came across as a lil feisty. However, I don't see any way that it works. Who decides which case is worthy of shaming a family? How is their child or family member murdering people and bringing shame to the family name not enough of a deterrent? How are they even going to shame them, by saying they're bad family members and it's partially their fault?

A lot of these people keep that side of their lives completely secret. It's not that family is turning a blind eye.

Sadly, I just think that America's too far gone to stop this happening regularly. They love their guns too much and there are far too many of them to ever get them back, especially from the criminals.

 

[deadshot138]

Antifa?

Did Infowars you that?

Alex Jones himself

 

[irish_thug]

I live a couple miles away, been to that bar tons of times. It’s known for country line dancing although don’t know if that was going on tonight.

Glad you aren't a wed night regular.

 

[Rational Poster]

I saw that a police officer was killed at the bar. Was the officer off-duty and not armed?

From what I heard the first response was by two cops and he was one of them.

 

[spamking]

Who is blaming? I own a sig p239 with hogue grips and a muzzle loader. There are lots of instances where a mental health evaluation would have prevented someone from buying a gun. Do you think someone with known suicidal tendencies should be allowed to own a gun? And what is currently done today to prevent such a person from buying a gun?

How familiar are you with various groups of FFLs and where we discuss those instances where we've refused to sell to someone? That's right . . . you're not. Vigilant FFLs refusal to sell to suspicious or folks who are otherwise not acting right has also prevented a suicidal person from buying a gun.

What test did they take to demonstrate this? How was their mental health evaluated ?

The same thing everyone completes when they undergo the FBI background check . . .

How do you evaluate the mental health of the people you work with? Are you able to see if they're acting different or not normal?

 

[faustian]

Apologies if I came across as a lil feisty. However, I don't see any way that it works. Who decides which case is worthy of shaming a family? How is their child or family member murdering people and bringing shame to the family name not enough of a deterrent? How are they even going to shame them, by saying they're bad family members and it's partially their fault?

A lot of these people keep that side of their lives completely secret. It's not that family is turning a blind eye.

Sadly, I just think that America's too far gone to stop this happening regularly. They love their guns too much and there are far too many of them to ever get them back, especially from the criminals.

I probably shouldn't have used the verb "shaming", that does seem a bit harsh. Maybe the media can just "focus" on the family backround more. Stick to reporting the facts and asking questions and letting viewers draw their own conclusions. In Florida for example we have the Marchman and Baker acts -- involuntary court-ordered psychiatric evaluation when it can be shown that an individual may be a threat to himself or others -- yet I've never heard anyone ask why the Parkland shooter wasn't Marchman or Baker'd despite there being numerous glaring warning signs

Yes I agree that we're too far gone to think gun-grabbing is a realistic option at this point. It's why I'm trying to think "outside the box", however unconventional (or even irrational) my ideas may end up being lol

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Just another day in a good old USA.

 

[Corona]

This is fucking disgusting and it’s pathetic how common this has become with no changes. I hope that piece of shit rots in hell.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Disgruntled employee is my guess.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

So the killer isn't white?

if no info has been released yet it's a minority. That's how it works in Canada znayway lol.

 

[BearGrounds]

Yes some people out there want to outlaw guns. It hasn't happened, or come remotely close to happening. It's just sad and ironic that you talk about the "left" having a misguided response to this tragedy when your first thought before the victims, before why it happened, before any thought on how to reduce these attacks is FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS LIBERALS!

In order to even make this post, you had to completely overlook the fact that I stated a need for addressing root causes such as mental health.

 

[jamel]

Like I told yall before, your stance on who all should be allowed to own a firearm would change drastically if you had to be range cadre for a good while.

Shit will change your entire stance on common sense too.

 

[legkicktko]

Yea background checks seem to be pretty well accepted at this point, what about mental health evaluation?

Everyone is good with it from what I’ve seen, but the concept itself of preventing mentally ill people from owning guns is nebulous. From my understanding, the last mental health bill was misleading and tricky with the wording and that’s why it was so unanimously shot down (despite that people oversimplify it and say that the gun owners don’t want mental health evaluations).

In the bill, they defined mental health as someone who collects money from the government. So those people would have been among those ineligible for owning firearms.

If there were a way to say someone is mentally unfit for owning a firearm or any weapon for that matter, I think it would be largely accepted. However, how do we know crazy until crazy does something? A lot of these losers are first time offenders.

The question has been and remains... how do we define mental health? If you see a psychologist, are you unfit for a firearm? How about if it’s for marriage counseling?

This is the conversation that needs to happen in my opinion.

 

[shockaholic12]

Everyone is good with it from what I’ve seen, but the concept itself of preventing mentally ill people from owning guns is nebulous. From my understanding, the last mental health bill was misleading and tricky with the wording and that’s why it was so unanimously shot down (despite that people oversimplify it and say that the gun owners don’t want mental health evaluations).

In the bill, they defined mental health as someone who collects money from the government. So those people would have been among those ineligible for owning firearms.

If there were a way to say someone is mentally unfit for owning a firearm or any weapon for that matter, I think it would be largely accepted. However, how do we know crazy until crazy does something? A lot of these losers are first time offenders.

The question has been and remains... how do we define mental health? If you see a psychologist, are you unfit for a firearm? How about if it’s for marriage counseling?

This is the conversation that needs to happen in my opinion.

Yeah, this could just lead people to avoid seeking therapy or talking about whatever mental health issues they may be suffering from.

 

[Squarechoke]

if no info has been released yet it's a minority. That's how it works in Canada znayway lol.

People on the forum (and elsewhere of course) keep saying that, and the times it turns out false they just stop posting and ignore it happened, only to move on to say the same thing next time a shooting happens.

Even if one thinks that all media act shady like that there are more factors at play, like that the police doesn't want information to leak out quickly during investigations.

 

[Deleted member 484047]

Yea background checks seem to be pretty well accepted at this point, what about mental health evaluation?

The problem with a mental health evaluation is who gets to set the standards? Who ensures that the people doing the evaluating aren't inserting their own biases into the final decision?

It's an ugly situation that we are in for sure, but finding a solution that works properly isnt as simple as some seem to think.