http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/lapd-attacks/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

If the cops are right and this suspect is the perp, then what could have been done? These questions pertain just as well to the ex-SEAL who was killed by a fellow vet suffering from PTSD last week.

In retrospect it's easy to see...these dudes were crazy and should not have been carrying guns. But they were, and legally.

We all agree (well, all of us except for the NRA) that background checks should be mandatory for all handgun sales, that's an easy one.

How does a background check get used to keep a crazy dude from getting a gun?

And second, and perhaps even more important after this incident and the one last week...how does someone who's legally carrying get his guns taken away when he's clearly become unstable and not a responsible carrier any more?

Everyone agrees that crazy people shouldn't have guns, but who would support checking to see if people are crazy before giving them guns, or even harder, who would support checking in on folks to see if they've become crazy?

And...in spite of saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people!" for decades, who thinks that the NRA would do anything other than scream bloody murder if any proposals addressing either of these possibilities were drawn up?

We can ignore them for a while, as we all know that the answer to crazy people with guns is more guns when we're talking the NRA...let's talk actual possibilities.

Fish on...

Todd

I have friends with PTSD and despite the over hyping of people faking it for the disability, I believe its legit in some people.

Todd the issue is with the people not really the system. When we get back from a deployment, we are required to complete several surveys and questionaires and talk to people about your mental health. The surveys are constructed to bring up red flags that will point to PTSD.

The issue is, people aren't being truthful on these. Those are the people that you see walking aroudn just fine until they do something idiotic. LIke that 'tard that shot up that village and is touting PTSD. Trust me if he was honest on that survey he would not be placed in that situtation again.

Yeah, but what gunowner is going to say "you know, I think I'm a little whacked out here and you should take my guns away"...?

Of course the problem is with the people...crazy people shouldn't have guns.

That's the question, though...how do we prevent crazy people from getting guns, and how do we get guns back from crazy people who already have them?

The answer is not to have more guns so we can all play shoot-em-up with crazy people because too many innocent people die from crazy people with guns.

Everyone agrees (even the NRA, which is kind of amazing) that crazy people shouldn't be armed...what we need is a solution other than "more guns!" to stop crazy people from having guns.

If every gunowner were a responsible gunowner then we wouldn't have nearly the problems we have now, but clearly every gunowner is not responsible.

Fish on...

Todd

How about internet users???? To much stimulation you know.......Dark side would be a lot less fun though.

Todd,

Crazies don't admit they are Crazy until they need an alliby.

And judging by the last several replies, even though everyone agrees that crazy people shouldn't have guns, since "guns don't kill people, people kill people", there's clearly no interest in actually stopping crazy people from having guns.

I almost feel like the President should present it to gunowners and the NRA this way, like the NCAA does with violators, and how many parents do it with their kids...

Come up with a solution that works, or we will...and "the answer is always more guns!" is not a solution.

The NRA and the gun/ammo industry they whore for have no interest in crazy people not being armed...they have interest in crazy people buying tons of guns and ammo, and then everyone else having to buy tons of guns and ammo to defend themselves from all the crazy people.

That world sucks, and that's the one the NRA is whoring out for the guns and ammo industry.

Fish on...

Todd

It is impossible to prevent every tragedy and creating laws and procedures to hopefully prevent the very few is a farce. This cop would have had every opportunity to be subjected to multiple psychological evaluations, more than any application that would be practical or affordable for a civilian and they still failed to identify him as a threat until he was fired.

It is just like vehicle safety equipment, speeding laws, warning signs etc... no matter how good it is, there will still be injuries and fatalities. The fact is, in that respect, the government can't even keep old people off the road when the family KNOWS that a relative shouldn't be driving. These would be a high risk group of drivers... just ask an insurance company, but we do nothing to keep them off the road.

Listening to the news last night I heard three shooting stories in a row (because those are the only newsworthy stories of course) and all three of the shooters were previously convicted- the Munchbar suspect was one of them... why is this guy on the street? How did HE access guns as a known felon?

I think we would be working in a positive direction if we focused more on enforcing the laws we have and investing in more in mental health evaluations of the population with the highest risk for PTSD or whatever illness creates these issues and focus less on the tools used in the crime. The tool is a constant between good and evil- it would be more productive to try and identify the evil doers before the crime than start removing weapons or access from the populace.

Here is the shooter's manifesto. Quite the entertaining read.

http://marker.to/79aCYM

Wow.

JTD, that argument would apply to getting rid of speed limits, and any other law, for that matter, since they don't always stop the activity they seek to stop or prevent deaths.

Too many drunk drivers? Clearly the penalties and laws aren't good enough to stop them, so we may as well just get rid of them.

Laws against robbing banks clearly haven't stopped bank robberies...may as well get them off the books, too.

This is the exact opposite of the "straw man" argument.

A Straw Man argument makes up a problem that doesn't actually exist and argues against that one, instead of a real one.

This is the Iron Man argument...it claims that the problem has no perfect solution, so we need not do anything at all about it. Check how everyone in the scientific world feels about man's effect on global climate change, and how politicians choose to deal with it for an example of how this one works.

The fact is that the NRA is blaming the problem on people, and then saying it's an unsolvable problem, so what we really need are more guns and more shooters.

Fish on...

Todd

Here's some reality:

The American people want something to change.

The Administration will do the peoples' bidding on this.

That change will not be "more guns".

Here's the job of gun owners...not the NRA, they don't support any of us who own guns, they support the gun industry, and only the gun industry...our job as gun owners is to come up with something other than "No!".

The American people see us as part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we've given them no reason to think otherwise...and, in fact, every penny we send to the NRA, every time LaPierre opens his mouth, and every time Ted Nugent opens his mouth, we prove that we are part of the problem to them.

What's it gonna be?

Fish on...

Todd

this situation with this guy has great potential to get way ugly. this guy has sniper training.

How do you think this will end?

Good guy with a gun.

Or the bad guy will blow his brains out.

The sooner the better.

Sarcasm at it's finest!

this will end in a major gun fight/shootout. i don't think he die by his own bullet. he'll be taken out by a drone.

(Todd)

No... you assert a leap of logic that wasn't suggested or intended.

I am saying there is an acceptable number or instances of tragedy whether it is gun related, driving related or otherwise. If we are focused on preventing more deaths, why wouldn't we then focus on practical and affordable areas like getting old people off the road, repeat offenders put away and identifying people in other high risk categories rather than beating up the general population of law abiding citizens?

It isn't the tool used. It is the people and more than half the time we know who these people are but don't do anything about it.

I suggest mental heath screenings are a joke with this ex cop's story used as an example.

As for your Iron Man argument and the NRA's "No" statement, how about a license just like your driver's license or a CWP that can be revoked and needs to be presented in order to purchase a firearm? Same background check, no registration or restriction of freedom or limit imposed... either I am in good standing as a citizen or not.

This guy was anti-gun, anti-NRA and an obama supporter. That might the common thread with all these mass shootings.

BTW...since he was an ex-cop and in the Navy don't you think he'd been vetted pretty thoroughly?

Yeah, I'd say he was pretty well vetted at a few points in his career...but he clearly shouldn't have been carrying at time this incident happened. That's the question...how do we stop the people end of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

If we're not going to stop guns, then we need to stop the crazy people from having them...or the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement goes from philosophical to ludicrous.

Fish on...

Todd

I know what you're saying Todd and agree but I don't think it's remotely possible to stop all crazy people from doing crazy, heinous crimes.

With or without guns.

What makes a gun crime worse than a DUI killing folks? If it was all about "saving just 1 life" why do we still allow folks to drive? Driving isn't a Constitutionally protected right yet more are killed on the roads each year.

I don't get the hyper panic that's gripping some folks...

We're not talking about DUI's, or plane crashes, or misdiagnoses from doctors...we're talking about gun violence, and saying "it's not as bad as other things, so if we 're not going to stop the other things we shouldn't stop this, either" makes just as much sense as saying "it's not guns, it's people" and then ignoring both guns and people in the equation.

Fish on...

Todd

Is the issue guns or the needless deaths of innocents?

PS....I know the anti-gun crowd wants nothing to obscure the emotional argument about guns but if you aren't willing to look at all innocent deaths then it just makes the gun argument seem trivial.