Father of Oregon killer blames GUNS, not son, for massacre?

[Cecilie1200]

The last I don't know how many mass shootings would not have happened if the lunatics who perpetrated them had been kept locked up after they proved themselves to be lunatics the FIRST time.

Because we don't lock people up when they are ill. Otherwise you'd have been locked up a long time ago.

We can't incarcerate people for what they might do.

The only solve for this problem is to figure out a way to keep weapons out of the hands of said lunatics.

The answer is criminal liability for sellers who fail to perform a nationally standardized background check.

And that's the problem right there. You're more concerned about dangerous lunatics' "right" to wander around loose, unmedicated and dangerous to the public than you are about the lives of the dozens of people they each might kill. This is why the ACLU and other leftist organizations demanded that we turn the mentally ill out of hospitals to wander the streets decades ago because of their "civil right" to be untreated and uncared for. This is why big chunks of our prison populations are actually people who should have been committed for their own and everyone else's safety. And this is us reaping the "benefits" of listening to liberal "compassion".

Yes.

I am in favor of every lunatic, including you and me, having the right to remain free pending their actually doing anything wrong. So is The US Constitution.

What I'm not in favor of is allowing EVERY lunatic the same access to deadly weapons.

The public has a right to demand minimum standards of responsibility and safety in the deadly weapons market.

`​

So you think a man of ordinary intelligence who strips naked and tries to attack people with his penis....or a man who repeatedly voices a desire to kill more people than Gacy, who scares neighborhood children and can't interact normally with anyone, should just be allowed to spin. Of course you do.

And you think if he attacks kids in a school, then we arrest him. Maybe. But no protection for the kids, by golly. That gives the wrong message.

Yeah, you're nuts. And nuts protect nuts.

Society has a right to protect themselves from lunatics. Crazy people who are menacing and unpredictable pose a threat to themselves and others. That's why we restrict them. It's not a crime, but you morons refusing to des with mental illness is why this shit happens. You turned them out, and now you insist they have the right to terrorize and kill our children. And we are to be given NO MEANS to protect them.

Truly foul.

Just make sure that their access to deadly weapons in not infringed upon in the process, eh KG?

Too funny.

Fuck nut, no one has ever suggested that crazy people have a "right" to weapons, any more than felons do . . . except for shitbrains like you who have no argument to defend your evil ideologies, and have to create strawmen to fight instead.

Congratulations. Your scarecrow is dead. As meaningless as everything else you believe. Pat yourself on the back for your achievement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you can not argue the fact that if people do not have mental illnesses they do not use guns to kill someone

Well, not quite. People who are evil do so. Whether or not you want to classify evil as "mental illness" is optional.

Some are evil. Some are not. But there is a threshold of mental illness that if a person is over it...evil or not, they are DANGEROUS. How is it cruel to keep them controlled...and keep THEM, not just innocent bystanders, safe??? Nobody blames them for being crazy...I am not kidding when I say I love crazy people...but it is what it is. They are never happy, and they aren't going to magically become undangerous out on the street. Treat them according their ability and needs but take into consideration everybody's safety. The leftist loons, being crazy themselves, will never react differently though. They want the lunatics to run the asylum.

And you want these folks to have unfettered, private access to a wide variety of deadly weapons because.....?

No, I want them locked up. Pay attention.

You want people locked up before they've committed a crime?

That seems positively un-American.

That's what they said in the 70's, so they unlocked all the doors to the cells and let the people out. Even today, they roam freely capable of hurting themselves, others, and even getting access to firearms.

But let's lock up the firearms. They don't have any Constitutional rights.

And they say WE are the ones who don't care about those killed in rampages.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's not blaming guns, he's blaming our lax policies concerning access to guns.

Big difference.

Compare the paperwork required to purchase and operate a motor vehicle to the paperwork required to own and operate a firearm.

you can not argue the fact that if people do not have mental illnesses they do not use guns to kill someone

Well, not quite. People who are evil do so. Whether or not you want to classify evil as "mental illness" is optional.

Some are evil. Some are not. But there is a threshold of mental illness that if a person is over it...evil or not, they are DANGEROUS. How is it cruel to keep them controlled...and keep THEM, not just innocent bystanders, safe??? Nobody blames them for being crazy...I am not kidding when I say I love crazy people...but it is what it is. They are never happy, and they aren't going to magically become undangerous out on the street. Treat them according their ability and needs but take into consideration everybody's safety. The leftist loons, being crazy themselves, will never react differently though. They want the lunatics to run the asylum.

And you want these folks to have unfettered, private access to a wide variety of deadly weapons because.....?

What part of "hospitalize them" translated into "give them guns" in that sick, twisted leftist prism in your . . . for want of a better word, brain?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He's not blaming guns, he's blaming our lax policies concerning access to guns.

Big difference.

Compare the paperwork required to purchase and operate a motor vehicle to the paperwork required to own and operate a firearm.

you can not argue the fact that if people do not have mental illnesses they do not use guns to kill someone

Well, not quite. People who are evil do so. Whether or not you want to classify evil as "mental illness" is optional.

Some are evil. Some are not. But there is a threshold of mental illness that if a person is over it...evil or not, they are DANGEROUS. How is it cruel to keep them controlled...and keep THEM, not just innocent bystanders, safe??? Nobody blames them for being crazy...I am not kidding when I say I love crazy people...but it is what it is. They are never happy, and they aren't going to magically become undangerous out on the street. Treat them according their ability and needs but take into consideration everybody's safety. The leftist loons, being crazy themselves, will never react differently though. They want the lunatics to run the asylum.

And you want these folks to have unfettered, private access to a wide variety of deadly weapons because.....?

No, I want them locked up. Pay attention.

You want people locked up before they've committed a crime?

That seems positively un-American.

Fool, she doesn't want them locked in prisons, which is where they end up in YOUR America. She wants them in mental hospitals, receiving treatment. They're sick, they go to the hospital . . . what part of this cause-and-effect chain is too confusing for you?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Fuck nut, no one has ever suggested that crazy people have a "right" to weapons, any more than felons do . . . except for shitbrains like you who have no argument to defend your evil ideologies, and have to create strawmen to fight instead.

Congratulations. Your scarecrow is dead. As meaningless as everything else you believe. Pat yourself on the back for your achievement.

So... Inquiring minds want to know... If the crazy people have had their second amendment rights successfully suspended, how come they keep acquiring guns and shooting up public places?

 

[AVG-JOE]

you can not argue the fact that if people do not have mental illnesses they do not use guns to kill someone

Well, not quite. People who are evil do so. Whether or not you want to classify evil as "mental illness" is optional.

Some are evil. Some are not. But there is a threshold of mental illness that if a person is over it...evil or not, they are DANGEROUS. How is it cruel to keep them controlled...and keep THEM, not just innocent bystanders, safe??? Nobody blames them for being crazy...I am not kidding when I say I love crazy people...but it is what it is. They are never happy, and they aren't going to magically become undangerous out on the street. Treat them according their ability and needs but take into consideration everybody's safety. The leftist loons, being crazy themselves, will never react differently though. They want the lunatics to run the asylum.

And you want these folks to have unfettered, private access to a wide variety of deadly weapons because.....?

No, I want them locked up. Pay attention.

You want people locked up before they've committed a crime?

That seems positively un-American.

Fool, she doesn't want them locked in prisons, which is where they end up in YOUR America. She wants them in mental hospitals, receiving treatment. They're sick, they go to the hospital . . . what part of this cause-and-effect chain is too confusing for you?

And just whom do you expect to pay for this treatment?

Do you have anything left over from your "Miss Conservative" pageant winnings that we can tax?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fuck nut, no one has ever suggested that crazy people have a "right" to weapons, any more than felons do . . . except for shitbrains like you who have no argument to defend your evil ideologies, and have to create strawmen to fight instead.

Congratulations. Your scarecrow is dead. As meaningless as everything else you believe. Pat yourself on the back for your achievement.

So... Inquiring minds want to know... If the crazy people have had their second amendment rights successfully suspended, how come they keep acquiring guns and shooting up public places?

They haven't had them suspended, dipshit, because they aren't institutionalized. They're still wandering free. Or did you imagine that mental hospitals hand out Glocks with the evening meds?

It appears most of them are stealing the guns, though, if that little digression makes you feel better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you can not argue the fact that if people do not have mental illnesses they do not use guns to kill someone

Well, not quite. People who are evil do so. Whether or not you want to classify evil as "mental illness" is optional.

Some are evil. Some are not. But there is a threshold of mental illness that if a person is over it...evil or not, they are DANGEROUS. How is it cruel to keep them controlled...and keep THEM, not just innocent bystanders, safe??? Nobody blames them for being crazy...I am not kidding when I say I love crazy people...but it is what it is. They are never happy, and they aren't going to magically become undangerous out on the street. Treat them according their ability and needs but take into consideration everybody's safety. The leftist loons, being crazy themselves, will never react differently though. They want the lunatics to run the asylum.

And you want these folks to have unfettered, private access to a wide variety of deadly weapons because.....?

No, I want them locked up. Pay attention.

You want people locked up before they've committed a crime?

That seems positively un-American.

Fool, she doesn't want them locked in prisons, which is where they end up in YOUR America. She wants them in mental hospitals, receiving treatment. They're sick, they go to the hospital . . . what part of this cause-and-effect chain is too confusing for you?

And just whom do you expect to pay for this treatment?

Do you have anything left over from your "Miss Conservative" pageant winnings that we can tax?

Oh, NOW you're penurious? We all have to "do something!" right up until a solution that might actually help comes up, and THEN you're suddenly chewed up with concern about expense?

You expect the American people to surrender their Constitutional rights and ability to protect themselves to YOUR insane plan, but you don't think they'd pony up to get crazy people off the street and unable to slaughter dozens? And this after insisting that they cough up the cash to get Grampa his regular hard-ons and raging feminist harpies their birth control and abortions? You finally stumble on the one government health care conservatives are likely to support, and you come over all shy.

There's just no limit to the hypocrisy you'll embrace, is there?

 

[koshergrl]

Well, not quite. People who are evil do so. Whether or not you want to classify evil as "mental illness" is optional.

Some are evil. Some are not. But there is a threshold of mental illness that if a person is over it...evil or not, they are DANGEROUS. How is it cruel to keep them controlled...and keep THEM, not just innocent bystanders, safe??? Nobody blames them for being crazy...I am not kidding when I say I love crazy people...but it is what it is. They are never happy, and they aren't going to magically become undangerous out on the street. Treat them according their ability and needs but take into consideration everybody's safety. The leftist loons, being crazy themselves, will never react differently though. They want the lunatics to run the asylum.

And you want these folks to have unfettered, private access to a wide variety of deadly weapons because.....?

No, I want them locked up. Pay attention.

You want people locked up before they've committed a crime?

That seems positively un-American.

Fool, she doesn't want them locked in prisons, which is where they end up in YOUR America. She wants them in mental hospitals, receiving treatment. They're sick, they go to the hospital . . . what part of this cause-and-effect chain is too confusing for you?

And just whom do you expect to pay for this treatment?

Do you have anything left over from your "Miss Conservative" pageant winnings that we can tax?

Oh, NOW you're penurious? We all have to "do something!" right up until a solution that might actually help comes up, and THEN you're suddenly chewed up with concern about expense?

You expect the American people to surrender their Constitutional rights and ability to protect themselves to YOUR insane plan, but you don't think they'd pony up to get crazy people off the street and unable to slaughter dozens? And this after insisting that they cough up the cash to get Grampa his regular hard-ons and raging feminist harpies their birth control and abortions? You finally stumble on the one government health care conservatives are likely to support, and you come over all shy.

There's just no limit to the hypocrisy you'll embrace, is there?

Crazy people are oddly committed to having violent crazies on the street.

 

[ChrisL]

Meh, understandable that the dad would try to find something else to blame besides his child though. No parent wants to believe that their child would be capable of doing something like this. I would NOT want to be in his shoes.

 

[JoeB131]

That's what they said in the 70's, so they unlocked all the doors to the cells and let the people out. Even today, they roam freely capable of hurting themselves, others, and even getting access to firearms.

But let's lock up the firearms. They don't have any Constitutional rights.

I think you are a little confused.

It wasn't Democrats who unleashed a torrent of mentally ill onto the streets. It was your boy, Ronald Reagan.

Did Reagan’s Crazy Mental Health Policies Cause Today’s Homelessness? – Poverty Insights

Really? What did he do? Let all of the mentally ill patients loose?

Well, yes, that’s exactly what they say he did.

Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization.

Ironically, Reagan was shot by a crazy person with a gun. There's almost poetry in that.

Except the senile old fuck lived.

 

[JoeB131]

Meh, understandable that the dad would try to find something else to blame besides his child though. No parent wants to believe that their child would be capable of doing something like this. I would NOT want to be in his shoes.

Nor would I. But the fact is, his son was mentally ill and he was still able to get 14 guns.

That's fucking crazy.

 

[ChrisL]

Meh, understandable that the dad would try to find something else to blame besides his child though. No parent wants to believe that their child would be capable of doing something like this. I would NOT want to be in his shoes.

Nor would I. But the fact is, his son was mentally ill and he was still able to get 14 guns.

That's fucking crazy.

Did he have a psychiatrist? Was he getting therapy? A psychiatrist is SUPPOSED to be able to pick up if a patient is homicidal/suicidal. The biggest problem I see here is our mental health system revolving door policies. They want to get these people in an out ASAP. The insurance companies do NOT want to pay for people to have lengthy hospital stays. If it is at all possible to avoid a lengthy stay, they will stabilize and send a patient home. They usually load them up with anti-psychotics and send them on their way, leaving it up to the patient whether or not to take the medication. These people need to be locked up on a long-term basis in a mental institution. Not given meds and sent away. THAT is our problem here in this country. We rely on medications to solve all of our problems.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree. I pity crazy people. If they were hospitalized and medicated, they might get the treatment they need to have lives. Watching leftists turn them out in the streets to become homeless or criminals in the name of "compassion" is one of the many reasons I despise the ideology of the left and hold those who spout it in such contempt.

Again, you are a little confused. The guy who turned them out into the streets was Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s shameful legacy: Violence, the homeless, mental illness - Salon.com

One month prior to the election, President Carter had signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which had proposed to continue the federal community mental health centers program, although with some additional state involvement. Consistent with the report of the Carter Commission, the act also included a provision for federal grants “for projects for the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of positive mental health,” an indication of how little learning had taken place among the Carter Commission members and professionals at NIMH. With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.

....

During the 1980s, an additional 40,000 beds in state mental hospitals were shut down. The patients being sent to community facilities were no longer those who were moderately well-functioning or elderly; rather, they included the more difficult, chronic patients from the hospitals’ back wards. These patients were often younger than patients previously discharged, less likely to respond to medication, and less likely to be aware of their need for medication. In 1988 the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) issued estimates of where patients with chronic mental illness were living. Approximately 120,000 were said to be still hospitalized; 381,000 were in nursing homes; between 175,000 and 300,000 were living in board-and-care homes; and between 125,000 and 300,000 were thought to be homeless. These broad estimates for those living in board-and-care homes and on the streets suggested that neither NIMH nor anyone else really knew how many there were.

 

[JoeB131]

Did he have a psychiatrist? Was he getting therapy? A psychiatrist is SUPPOSED to be able to pick up if a patient is homicidal/suicidal. The biggest problem I see here is our mental health system revolving door policies. They want to get these people in an out ASAP. The insurance companies do NOT want to pay for people to have lengthy hospital stays. If it is at all possible to avoid a lengthy stay, they will stabilize and send a patient home. They usually load them up with anti-psychotics and send them on their way, leaving it up to the patient whether or not to take the medication. These people need to be locked up on a long-term basis in a mental institution. Not given meds and sent away. THAT is our problem here in this country. We rely on medications to solve all of our problems.

Maybe if you wingnuts cared about the mentally ill before they got guns and started shooting people, (prompting calls for gun control), we could address some of these issues.

I agree, the poor state of our mental health care is a problem.

So is the fact that someone as deranged as Mercer can walk in and buy 14 guns.

So is the fact that someone like Holmes can buy a military grade assault rifle and a 100 round magazine.

We really need to address both. Not scream about one hoping no one will pay attention to the other.

 

[JoeB131]

Fuck nut, no one has ever suggested that crazy people have a "right" to weapons, any more than felons do . . . except for shitbrains like you who have no argument to defend your evil ideologies, and have to create strawmen to fight instead.

Wait a minute, hasn't it been your claim that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

If you are arguing that this is an individual right and not a collective one (you know, that part about well-regulated militias) then shouldn't the crazy and felons have a right to own a weapon just as much as they have a right to free speech, freedom of religion or trial by jury? (Individual rights that are not so much in dispute.)

 

[ChrisL]

Did he have a psychiatrist? Was he getting therapy? A psychiatrist is SUPPOSED to be able to pick up if a patient is homicidal/suicidal. The biggest problem I see here is our mental health system revolving door policies. They want to get these people in an out ASAP. The insurance companies do NOT want to pay for people to have lengthy hospital stays. If it is at all possible to avoid a lengthy stay, they will stabilize and send a patient home. They usually load them up with anti-psychotics and send them on their way, leaving it up to the patient whether or not to take the medication. These people need to be locked up on a long-term basis in a mental institution. Not given meds and sent away. THAT is our problem here in this country. We rely on medications to solve all of our problems.

Maybe if you wingnuts cared about the mentally ill before they got guns and started shooting people, (prompting calls for gun control), we could address some of these issues.

I agree, the poor state of our mental health care is a problem.

So is the fact that someone as deranged as Mercer can walk in and buy 14 guns.

So is the fact that someone like Holmes can buy a military grade assault rifle and a 100 round magazine.

We really need to address both. Not scream about one hoping no one will pay attention to the other.

Joe, you know I'm not a wingnut, so shut the fuck up. Do you know how he obtained the weapons?

 

[ChrisL]

Fuck nut, no one has ever suggested that crazy people have a "right" to weapons, any more than felons do . . . except for shitbrains like you who have no argument to defend your evil ideologies, and have to create strawmen to fight instead.

Wait a minute, hasn't it been your claim that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

If you are arguing that this is an individual right and not a collective one (you know, that part about well-regulated militias) then shouldn't the crazy and felons have a right to own a weapon just as much as they have a right to free speech, freedom of religion or trial by jury? (Individual rights that are not so much in dispute.)

If a person cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then they should be in jail, or locked in a mental facility if mentally ill.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, you know I'm not a wingnut, so shut the fuck up. Do you know how he obtained the weapons?

some he bought and some his mommy bought for him.

Just because you are sensible (or excercising self-interest) on other issues doesn't make you less of a nut on this one.

Here's the thing. Mercer never, ever, ever should have been allowed to own a gun, given his clear history of mental problems, including being treated for them most of his childhood, being thrown out of the Army after a few weeks for mental problems, or referring to himself as Lithium Love on the internet. This was a guy who clearly should not have had access to guns.

But he was able to get them.

If a person cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then they should be in jail, or locked in a mental facility if mentally ill.

Isn't that what the USSR used to do? You know, throw dissidents into mental hospitals?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that we should be able to declare someone mentally ill and deprive them of their right to free speech or due process of law?

Or do you just think this is a loophole to deny them second Amendment rights AFTER they've shot up a bunch of people, and say, "Damn, that guy was crazy. I had no idea he could get a gun!"

 

[ChrisL]

Joe, you know I'm not a wingnut, so shut the fuck up. Do you know how he obtained the weapons?

some he bought and some his mommy bought for him.

Just because you are sensible (or excercising self-interest) on other issues doesn't make you less of a nut on this one.

Here's the thing. Mercer never, ever, ever should have been allowed to own a gun, given his clear history of mental problems, including being treated for them most of his childhood, being thrown out of the Army after a few weeks for mental problems, or referring to himself as Lithium Love on the internet. This was a guy who clearly should not have had access to guns.

But he was able to get them.

If a person cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then they should be in jail, or locked in a mental facility if mentally ill.

Isn't that what the USSR used to do? You know, throw dissidents into mental hospitals?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that we should be able to declare someone mentally ill and deprive them of their right to free speech or due process of law?

Or do you just think this is a loophole to deny them second Amendment rights AFTER they've shot up a bunch of people, and say, "Damn, that guy was crazy. I had no idea he could get a gun!"

Joe, YOU declared him mentally ill. Lol. I asked you if he has seen a psychiatrist since you seem to know so much about this. Duh.

No, the problem is with our mental health system. He should have never been out of a locked mental facility. IF a person cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then that person should not be out in society. Period.