Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

Cosmo wrote:

That's it, in a nutshell.
Most of us just want to do something to prevent the mass murder type massacres from becoming so common place in America that we get used to it. We are NOT calling to eliminate all gun ownership... we are NOT trying the shred the Constitution... we are NOT 'against guns'.
We are simply sick of co-called 'law-abiding, responsible' gun owners from from flipping the psycho switch and turning their 21 gun semi-automatic arsenal on American citizens just trying to watch a movie or go to church.
We understand that there are Constitutional rights tied to this and want to find a workable solution, other than going after the gunman after he has gone berserk. We undrstand the legal implications and that it is delicate walking through Second Amendment Rights and public safety.
It is a difficult problem to solve and bumper sticker slogans or anecdotal stories don't solve anything.

The Wisconsin shooter got his gun just a bit before the shooting. There have been 23 'mass shootings' in the USA this year (and we're only in August). Not all as 'spectacular' as the last two, but multi-victims nevertheless. I'm sure these people had a right not to be killed or maimed by nutters with easy access to arms.

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

redrock wrote:

That's the problem with this 'discussion' :? Not reading what others have to say. Stricter controls are what people are calling for. Not being able to buy guns over the internet with no checks, no registration, no nothing. Also mandatory training to go with acquiring a gun. After all, you can't have a driving license without having past your driving test (and theory test, and eye test, etc.). Why should one be able to have lethal weapons without having shown they can use and keep them responsibly. Gun safety is all part of this.

THIS is what people are discussing. Not taking a little old lady's gun away.

Exactly. :thumbup:

ok this is deja vu we already covered this there are people here in favor of gun banning...


and I'll answer again
enforce the laws we have.

The laws that are in place are not enough they have to be updated to suit the the climate we now live in , all we are asking for is stricter laws ....

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pandora, where is the well regulated militia and how does that apply to today in 2012? people buying these military grade weapons are not in militias, because there are no militias. the 2nd amendment does not give people carte blanche to own an arsenal.

A bit about the constitution, militia, etc.

http://smartgunlaws.org/second-amendment-basics/

http://smartgunlaws.org/the-second-amendment/

Edit: I should mention that his source is for 'smarter' gun laws.


BTW - just looked up gun laws in Georgia. Just as shocking as Colorado (and many other States). No wonder some may be paranoid and see gun toting nutters everywhere.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystat ... aws_ga.htm

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2nd amendment...
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

...
That is what is open to interpretation.
When it was drafted, it was because the King's Army was the one who were 'The Protectors' of the colonies, not the colonists. That's also the reason for the 3rd Amendment is ranked so high, to keep the Army from taking over your land and water for their needs. in fact, all of the Amendments were drafted because that was the way England ran the colonies and the founders wanted to make sure it didn't occur after the formation of our country.
Now, 'A Well-regulated Militia' is necessary and that military should be made up of citizens, not soldiers of a foriegn land. Basically, the formation of a citizen army.
...
It can also be interpreted as the citizens being a regulated militia... meaning I should be able to buy a fully operational tank or howitzer, if I want to. I can't because basic reasoning says, we can't have privately owned and operated tanks rolling down our streets.
Either way... it is a tough situation, regarding the times and technologies. I do not believe our founders ever envisioned flame throwers or M-16s.

comebackgirl wrote:

. [
And in many of the shootings the guns were purchased legally. The thing is, people are law-abiding...until they're not. Until there are stricter restrictions we are taking a huge risk in having seemingly very open access to weapons and ammunition in some states, including for people who are teetering on the edge.

Exactly. When the likes of Holmes can stockpile for weeks, buying over the internet with no checks,one needs to question the efficacity of current laws. Stricter regulations, proper checks may be able to avoid such people getting their hands on arsenals. No skin off the nose of the 'responsible, law abiding citizen', on the contrary.

Nice police work... :roll:


The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.

The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.

Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.
"For any physician to break doctor-patient confidentiality there would have to be an extremely good reason," said Dr. Carol Bernstein, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Medical Center and past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Bernstein has no specific knowledge of the Holmes case and spoke in general terms.
"Confidentiality is a key part of the doctor-patient relationship," she said. "It is central to everything we do."
ABC news and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver first reported Wednesday that Fenton had contacted other members of the university's threat-assessment team about her concerns. The university-wide, threat-assessment team reportedly never met to discuss Holmes after he announced his intent to withdraw from the University nearly six weeks before the July 20 shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured.

University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery declined to comment on what, if anything, the university police officer might have done with information provided by Fenton, citing a court-issued gag order preventing her from confirming or denying any information related to Fenton or the investigation.
In a written statement to ABC News, however, the university said campus police officers are "frequently involved" in meetings of the university's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team.
The statement went on to say that police involvement with threat assessment "could include security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals and outreach to other law enforcement agencies."

ComeToTX wrote:

Nice police work... :roll:


The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.

The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.

Fenton would have had to have serious concerns to break confidentiality with her patient to reach out to the police officer or others, the sources said. Under Colorado law, a psychiatrist can legally breach a pledge of confidentiality with a patient if he or she becomes aware of a serious and imminent threat that their patient might cause harm to others. Psychiatrists can also breach confidentiality if a court has ordered them to do so.
"For any physician to break doctor-patient confidentiality there would have to be an extremely good reason," said Dr. Carol Bernstein, a psychiatrist at NYU Langone Medical Center and past president of the American Psychiatric Association.

Bernstein has no specific knowledge of the Holmes case and spoke in general terms.
"Confidentiality is a key part of the doctor-patient relationship," she said. "It is central to everything we do."
ABC news and affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver first reported Wednesday that Fenton had contacted other members of the university's threat-assessment team about her concerns. The university-wide, threat-assessment team reportedly never met to discuss Holmes after he announced his intent to withdraw from the University nearly six weeks before the July 20 shooting that left 12 dead and 58 injured.

University of Colorado spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery declined to comment on what, if anything, the university police officer might have done with information provided by Fenton, citing a court-issued gag order preventing her from confirming or denying any information related to Fenton or the investigation.
In a written statement to ABC News, however, the university said campus police officers are "frequently involved" in meetings of the university's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team.
The statement went on to say that police involvement with threat assessment "could include security matters, badge access, background checks, wellness checks, criminal investigations and referrals and outreach to other law enforcement agencies."

I posted a bit about this on the AET as well. I'm very interested in hearing more about what Fenton knew specifically and what she shared with police. My assumption is that both Fenton (or a rep from Counseling Services) and campus police both sit on the threat assessment team. The threat assessment teams/BIT teams grew out of VA Tech and allow for some general sharing among members, but mental health professionals are still bounds by confidentiality laws and can only share specifics if a risk rises to the level outlined in the Tarasoff case. If Fenton knew of a very clear and specific risk she absolutely could and should have reported that to the police and they should have responded accordingly and worked with the local off-campus police as well. However, if she just had a general concern about his mental stability, she would only have been able to mention that he had been evaluated by the center and that there was a general concern for his behavior. It's really unclear what Fenton knew and what she relayed at his point. Since Holmes wasn't hospitalized, my guess is that he was teetering on the edge but wasn't quite at the point of being considered a danger to himself or others when she evaluated him, nor that she had any information about a specific threat. If she had any of those concerns, she most likely would have had him immediately sent to the local crisis center for evaluation. I haven't heard anything to indicate this was done yet. It's possible that the school dropped the ball when Holmes decided to withdraw from school and they may have figured he was no longer a concern for the university. They should have at least attempted to refer him to services in the community at that point, but they wouldn't have been able to mandate that.

And then we have this one.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08 ... e-say?lite