::Yawn:: Seattle Shooting. This Month.

[brokenprism]

These go here, right? If they're not 2A issues yet, they'll lead to one.

Ybarra shooting on a campus. Worked at a trap range. This has liability written all over it:

"Ybarra (26) frequently came by and attempted to befriend the high-school age workers, inviting them to go drinking and shooting. Ybarra began leaving Winter rambling phone messages about guns, and then asked Winter why he didn't call back, Winter said.

Eventually, Ybarra was asked to stay away from the shop."

It should read that ATF or state police were notified of the behavior and THEN he was asked to stay away. Maybe they couldn't have done anything (if they can take your toy gun when you're sane, why not a real gun when you're not?) but that's a law I wouldn't mind seeing. A 26-yr old trolling teenagers should have been reported to somebody too. Seems like 'socially awkward' is the new predictor of dangerous behavior.

It's going to bite us when the shooting community turns a blind eye -- and back -- to one of its 'own' when we're years deep in incidents like this.

 

[EvilBetty]

It's a slippery slope.

Some want to ban guns from individuals that suffer a mental illness. At what point is the behavior of an individual declared a mental illness (legally)?


If you look at the list on WebMD List of mental disorders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
, you find some that may describe the kind of person that you wouldn't want near a gun, or a motor vehicle for that matter. But you'll find a lot that on their own wouldn't make a person unable to deal with the responsibility of a firearm. If they did use a list such as this, look at how many could be interpreted to pertain to just about anyone at some point during their life.

What about treatable conditions? Is a diagnosis alone enough to invalidate their 2A rights? Who decides if the treatment is sufficient to make that person safe? Are your rights restored once you're declared free of said mental illness? Who decides this and how long does that take? What happens to your guns in the meantime?

A lot of the people committing these crimes lately have fallen into the new DSM-V's definition of "Autism Spectrum". This is a very broad category that encompasses people from full Autism, Aspergers, ADD, ADHD, and many others. As much as these diagnosis are made today most of you surely know a few people diagnosed this way, and how many of them do you know that have committed a violent act, or display violent tendencies?

How many people diagnosed with a mental illness have committed violent crimes? Answer: Not many...

Facts About Mental Illness and Violence - Mental Health Reporting - UW School of Social Work

So if no where near a majority of individuals diagnosed with a mental illness commit violent crimes, why are we looking at banning guns from these individuals?

Answer is the same as always. Irrational thought and fear, added sensationalization by the media, and a need for a sense of security.

Blaming the gun wasn't working. They continue to loose the fight on that front as gun owners counter illogical rhetoric with education on gun ownership and statistics. Some of this is soaking in. The banter has also been creating a lot of indifference on the subject.

Some of the spin by both sides after Sandy Hook began pushing the problem as persons with mental illness. It makes sense in a way, since many of the recent shootings that have been heavily over-reported have been perpetrated by persons diagnosed or "showing signs" of mental illness.

Other statistics show that much of inner-city crime is committed by persons who didn't complete school or are on the lower end of the poverty line. Maybe then using the above logic, we should make it so that gun ownership requires a certain a high school diploma and a yearly reported income of $45,000? No.

Criminals commit crimes. A person is not a criminal until they commit a crime, no matter their intelligence, success, or mental state.