You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.one of the first things trump did when he got the keys to the white house:
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
Yahoo NewsAugust 5, 2019
In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.
“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.
[...]
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?
Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.
Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.
But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)
So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.
You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.one of the first things trump did when he got the keys to the white house:
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
Yahoo NewsAugust 5, 2019
In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.
“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.
[...]
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?
Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.
Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.
But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)
So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.
I know what I'm talking about, Crixus. But mental incompetence is not what this thread is about, and you won't listen anyway, so believe what you like. Just know it's full of shit.I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.one of the first things trump did when he got the keys to the white house:
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
Yahoo NewsAugust 5, 2019
In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.
“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.
[...]
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?
That bar ain't to high at all. It's very easy to be convicted of domestic violence. That right there is enough to remove 2nd amendment rights. Hell, take a look at this Dayton shooter I think it was . There is another guy who was arrested for lying on his yellow form. What was the lie? When asked if he had ever done drugs or smoked pot he said no. So they arrested him for not answering yes to that question. So then that being the case, you ever use CBD oil? You live in a state where weed is legal? This puts gun buyers in a spot. If they answer yes they can't buy a gun. Th y answer no they lied on a federal document.
I know what I'm talking about, Crixus. But mental incompetence is not what this thread is about, and you won't listen anyway, so believe what you like. Just know it's full of shit.I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.one of the first things trump did when he got the keys to the white house:
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
Yahoo NewsAugust 5, 2019
In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.
“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.
[...]
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?
That bar ain't to high at all. It's very easy to be convicted of domestic violence. That right there is enough to remove 2nd amendment rights. Hell, take a look at this Dayton shooter I think it was . There is another guy who was arrested for lying on his yellow form. What was the lie? When asked if he had ever done drugs or smoked pot he said no. So they arrested him for not answering yes to that question. So then that being the case, you ever use CBD oil? You live in a state where weed is legal? This puts gun buyers in a spot. If they answer yes they can't buy a gun. Th y answer no they lied on a federal document.
Earlier versions allowed a warrant to be issued, seizure to take place, and then the individual had to PROVE they were not a 'danger'......if and when the individual finally gets a chance in court to do so.
Trump is caving to the Socialist Democrat Party tactic of 'striking while the iron is hot', or better stated as 'manipulate emotions and play upon them to apply political pressure to get your way'.
My understanding is that such an emergency order would be based on pretty substantial evidence to start with, Crixus. Why does everyone think judges and cops are so brainless? They've got more experience with nutty vs. pissed off people than you or I do, and for the evidentiary hearing within two weeks, it takes more evidence than that to show the person is homicidal or suicidal.You've lost me. ERPO is about individuals exhibiting homicidal/suicidal behavior. One person at a time. I'm not sure how statistical rarity of mass shootings factors into that at all.There's also a huge problem here with Mental Health being anyone's ringer, to begin with.I agree with you. I have worked with a lot of people with a "mental health" SSI disability. Most of them are not dangerous in the least. However, those mentally incompetent enough to lose their rights? That's a real high bar in a court of law, and if they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves, they don't need to be trusted with a decision about who to shoot, either.one of the first things trump did when he got the keys to the white house:
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Christopher Wilson
Senior Writer
Yahoo NewsAugust 5, 2019
In the wake of this weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, President Trump was quick to point to mental illness as a cause, echoing a Republican talking point that emerged in interviews and social media posts on Sunday.
“Mental illness and hatred pull the trigger, not the gun,” said Trump in a speech Monday morning from the White House. He said the country “must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”
But in his first full month in office, Trump signed a bill rolling back an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with mental illnesses to purchase firearms. The rule would have used Social Security records to add about 75,000 names to the database used in background checks of gun buyers (from licensed firearms dealers). People receiving supplemental-income support for mental disability and those found unfit to handle their own financial affairs would have been precluded from purchasing firearms. While the rule went on the books just before Trump took office in January 2017, compliance was not mandatory until December 2017.
[...]
Trump blames 'mental illness' for shootings, but rolled back Obama regulation on gun sales
Of those 75,000, have any done anything to justify their names being added to a data base of any kind?
Some of a psychotropic drugs' side effects, are: manic, violent behavior.
Now - in some cases, these psychotropic side-effects occur in one in 2-million folks... that experience this side effect, so we deem the drugs okay to use. I'd agree with doing that, statistically. It's so rare, that it's not right at all to limit the other 1, 999, 999 other folks that won't experience this sort of side effect.
But I'm employing the same logic within the gun debate. It's very rare, even more rare than the statistic of folks that experience violent side-effects on these drugs, for someone to become a mass shooter. Not only that, but most of the folks are either pre-determined to have had a mental illness, or determined as much after the shootings. Something like 94% of shooters? (I'm going off memory)
So - we have a problem that really might be impossible to resolve. I guess we can employ mitigating factors. I dunno if there's any good answer.
If that's the case, LE can already act. What if the bad behavior is a Facebook post? You see how it is here OldLady. If I said "blaaah, you libtards need to be erased"! This place being what it is I would just end up on ignore, but if something reported that to their authorities what then? What if we turned this on black lives matter, remember "pigs in a blanket cry them like bacon"? I don't think they really meant that, but is that the type stuff we are talking about?
You mean like the evidence Obama's DOJ and FBI had they used to get FISA Warrants to spy on Trump's team....? This is the same govt whose CIA was forced to admit they illegally spied on US Senators and even USSC Justices....
