Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[sexobon]

The rule adversely affected Americans with disabilities who depended on Social Security Disability payments. It potentially enabled their rights to be abridged without a court order just because they're disabled.

From Wikipedia:

The rule would require that the Social Security administration report to the Attorney General recipients found to be disabled in order for them to be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[2] To qualify for reporting, an individual would have had to meet two criteria:

• determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: Is a danger to himself or to others
•They have to be receiving full disability benefits and couldn't find work.
•They require the assistance of a third party to manage their own benefits

[BOLD MINE]

Boards, commissions, or other lawful authority get to effectively rescind privileges; but, not rights and certainly not because some administrative rule says they can.

It was an ill conceived rule, a typical knee jerk reaction by emotional sheeple trying, in their hysteria, to find a panacea by including provisions for bypassing the courts and eliminating due process.

[Clodfobble]

How would you propose the bill be written differently?

[sexobon]

In the absence of a previous court ruling, the Social Security Administration would submit its information to a court which would decide, after affording the subject legal representation and deliberation, if a report should be made to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The Executive branch shouldn't have unilateral control over what rights people have and especially not for those who are among the most vulnerable of citizens ... the disabled.

[tw]

Wow. Massive bureaucracy so that nothing happens.

The law was created after Seung-Hui Cho created his Virginia Tech massacre. He was known with mental problems. But bureaucracy made it impossible to protect Virginia Tech students.

The law said a government agency that knows of people who should not have a gun must report that name to a central database - the NICS. No problem. If information is wrong, then the list is appealed in court. Some 4000 did appeal and had their names removed from the list for various reasons include a restoration of mental health. Something approaching 2 million (if I remember that number) had their names remain on that list.

NRA will chip away at protection. So the Donald said the Social Security Administration cannot report (what is maybe 75,000) mentally ill people to that list. All part of a process to increase sales - which is the only purpose of that industry organization.

He used the word 'disability'. That is NRA word spinning. Only disability reported to the NICS is mental illness - people who should not be sold assault weapons. That 'disability' can no longer be reported since a self proclaimed genius wants more massacres.

[DanaC]

Only disability reported to the NICS is mental illness - people who should not be sold assault weapons.

That is an awfully broad brush we're waving about there. There are many different kinds of mental illness.

In cases of mass shootings, while mental illness may be a factor it's rarely the determining factor.

You can be mentally ill or unstable without being wicked - and you can be plenty wicked without being mentally ill.

[sexobon]

Not to mention that administratively taking away people's Constitutional rights and making them go to court to prove that they should have them is bass ackwards and not what this country is about. Fear will make the weak try to do that though.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

That is an awfully broad brush we're waving about there.

Only broad brush was the simple summary of a more complex law that Trump want to continue to destroy. Only discussed is an extemely limited restriction - an almost no restriction. If anything better could exist, then it would have been proposed here. Nothing was because no better solution exists except those that eliminate so many more loopholes.

Nobody needs a gun the minute he feels he needs it. Filters sometimes slow that purchase. No problem for anyone - ever. Worse, anyone who needs a gun can go to gun shows where restrictions are bypassed. The problem is too few filters and restrictions. So we need to eliminate them all?

In a local convention center, what was the largest show they ever had? The gun show one day after Sandy Hook. Guns were not purchased to protect their kid' schools. Fears that assault weapons would finally be restricted increases sales among the emotional who need military weapons.

This Cruz kid could not by alcohol and could not buy an 9 mm handgun. Without trivial restrictions compromised, he can immediately buy an assault rifle - no questions asked.

Cho apparently had mental illness. But laws said he had every right to buy assault weapons, oversized magazines, and all the munitions he wanted. Because we must not learn who is danagerous? We have not yet killed enough (thousands of) kids yet. How many thousands must die before some finally admit we have no where near enough demands for responsibility.

You can be mentally ill and not be wicked? Fine. Then remove laws that have restricted research. NRA successfully got this research banned decades ago.

Who did Trump protect? The mentally ill. Anyone wonder why?

[sexobon]

Trump obviously believes your rights should be protected.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Trump obviously believes your rights should be protected.

Trump has a long history of trampling on other's right. Trump is only now advocating the banning of bum stocks because his popularity (due to so many assault rifles) is threatened. Trump does not care about anyone but himself and his kids.

He has even demonstrated less respect for his wives.

Just wondering when he will trade this one in for a newer model.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Not to mention that administratively taking away people's Constitutional rights and making them go to court to prove that they should have them is bass ackwards and not what this country is about. Fear will make the weak try to do that though.

That interpretation implies that every potential gun owner would be forced to actively prove their competence before purchasing (as it is in Japan, for example.) The proposed mental health laws in this case are only taking away Constitutional rights from those who have already gone out of their way to prove themselves unfit. We also have Constitutional rights to life and freedom, but we routinely take those away when the situation warrants it.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That interpretation implies that every potential gun owner would be forced to actively prove their competence before purchasing (as it is in Japan, for example.) ...

That's your non sequitur extrapolation, not my implication.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... The proposed mental health laws in this case are only taking away Constitutional rights from those who have already gone out of their way to prove themselves unfit.

[BOLD MINE]

Not "only", that's why this:

Originally Posted by tw

... If information is wrong, then the list is appealed in court. Some 4000 did appeal and had their names removed from the list for various reasons ...

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

We also have Constitutional rights to life and freedom, but we routinely take those away when the situation warrants it.

Those are subject to oversight, that mental health rule was not. This country has a history of insufficient oversight in the management of those with mental illness.

So, what was the mental illness for which Cruz should have had his Constitutional rights taken away preemptively?

Cruz had been diagnosed with autism, a neurological disorder that often leads to social awkwardness and isolation, and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

If we can have commissions or boards make these determinations, then why not school boards to nip these people in the bud before they're even old enough to figure out how to get into trouble. Maybe they should also be barred from ever voting because they might want to vote for someone like Trump!.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Those are subject to oversight, that mental health rule was not. This country has a history of insufficient oversight in the management of those with mental illness.

This country has a history of intentionally subverting research into better oversight - because research into gun violence would only hurt profits.

If honestly addressing this problem, then your every post should be screaming for research into gun violence. Why not? Only those who love the profits generated by massacres are not screaming for research and solutions.

The kid could not even buy a beer. And could not even buy a 9 mm pistol. But had every right to buy a gun that only has one purpose - massacre people.

We even ban people from their constitutional right to vote. But protect their right to buy hardware that is designed to maximize the death of other people.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... If honestly addressing this problem, then your every post should be screaming for research into gun violence. Why not?

Because gun violence is a red herring. The problem is people violence. Until those who like you let fear filter their perceptions while grasping at scapegoats and panaceas come to terms with that, we'll just keep Trump in the White House.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Those are subject to oversight, that mental health rule was not. This country has a history of insufficient oversight in the management of those with mental illness.

So, what was the mental illness for which Cruz should have had his Constitutional rights taken away preemptively?

But there was oversight, via committee. Just like there is oversight in the committee of epilepsy specialists that currently says whether I'm legally allowed to have a drivers license. And yes, I'm fine with people with a diagnosis of autism being preemptively put on a no-guns list. They can appeal.

FYI, school districts are not legally allowed to make diagnoses now, nor will it ever be in their best interest to do so: a kid with a diagnosis is eligible for services the schools don't want to pay for. They go out of their way to keep a diagnosis off the school record, even when the parent has one from a doctor.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But there was oversight, via committee. Just like there is oversight in the committee of epilepsy specialists that currently says whether I'm legally allowed to have a drivers license. ..

Apples and oranges, a right vs a privilege. I've already covered the difference in legitimate oversight between the two and your circular argument is not favorably considered.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... And yes, I'm fine with people with a diagnosis of autism being preemptively put on a no-guns list. They can appeal. ...

It's dandy, that you're fine with this. It's swell that others are not. We'll see at the polls just like last time.

Sweet dreams.