This stemmed from another conversation but I think it deserves its own thread. Here is some of what I think the pro-gun rights groups can suggest for solutions to mass murder and gun violence in general. I say this because I think we have stonewalled too much and we look like we don't care and don't have any ideas. If we don't come up with something they will eventually overrun us and claim we never offered any input.

Let's keep this civil. This is to develop ideas, not so others can start a flame war. Present ideas and discuss them.


I think the first step though is to examine the way the two sides are communicating because right now most people aren't communicating, they are yelling back and forth. We can't be painting everyone as either one extreme or the other. They want to say we are all gun nuts thinking all crazy people should own guns and our side is painting them as someone who doesn't want us to be allowed to own a butter knife. We need to stop falling for and continuing this false dichotomy. Now we cannot force the fart left liberals to communicate nicely but we can avoid contributing to the degradation of the conversation. Sometimes when we meet their hostility with calm politeness then we can break down their defensive wall and actually communicate. This isn't a solution to the problem of course but it is opening the door to start.

Now I don't have very specific ideas yet but here would be the general themes I would suggest that pro gun people propose.
-Develop a system whereby someone with a serious mental health condition that is correlated with violence be evaluated. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-Develop a system whereby someone who exhibits serious behavior issues that are correlated with violence to have their firearms taken away. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
     -The firearm revocation must have a limit, say a hearing involving the individual must be held within 4 days to decide whether there is cause to keep the guns from that individual. If no cause or no hearing, they get their guns      back.
-Develop a system where someone selling a gun, whether private or by a business, can make a simple check to see if that person can legally own a firearm. Doesn't need to be registration or tracking of the sale, just a way to check with authorities that the individual is legally allowed to purchase the gun. (I have been thinking about this one for a while to propose to a legislator here. I have more specifics but am just giving the basics here)
-Develop a system where information is shared quickly and efficiently across jurisdictions. We have something like that for people convicted of a crime but there are holes in the system. Consider ways to expand it to have people who are dangerously mentally ill.
-Implement a check and balance to the whole proposal where people can appeal decisions and get review after time has passed since some mental health issues go away.
-Consider more funding for mental health overall.
-Consider having more individuals who are dangerous kept in secure facilities. As part of this we may need to look at re-evaluating which ones go to prison and which ones go to a mental hospital.

These are just general directions to head, Of course the devil is in the details but we can brainstorm first.

The FBI receives countless tips and doesn’t have the resources it would need to follow every lead,
 but the bureau appears to have “dropped the ball” after it was alerted that someone with the user name
Nikolas Cruz posted on social media that he aspired to be “a professional school shooter,” according to a
former member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces.

How about people who notice behavioral problems, threats of violence and an obsession with firearms report that person to the local and federal authorities.

Oh, wait!  ....

FBI AGENT: BUREAU 'DROPPED THE BALL' WITH FLORIDA SHOOTER
'I would have sent officers to the house'


You  can develop as many "systems" as you think are needed.  In the end, the government is incompetent.  They can not keep you safe from evil and mental illness, because it's impossible to identify and incarcerate these people if they are not already in the system.

How many times have you written the antigun argument here, "Everyone is law-abiding until they aren't?"  That's a true statement.  The impossibility lies in detecting violent people BEFORE they commit violence.  No "mental health professional" can predict that without specific threats being made, like "I'm going to be a professional shoot shooter."

We have those mechanisms in place. Are they being enforced or used???
One recent example of failure of a mechanism or process is the embarrassing escape of Mr. Saito.

So on the one hand you blame them for dropping the ball but on the other you suggest they aren't able to do anything. Which is it?

So say the FBI had gone to the house and done their due diligence. Would you be then OK with them taking away this kids guns or locking him in a mental institution?

Florida Sheriff for Polk County Grady Judd suggests it would be a “game changer” if teachers and administrative
staff were trained and equipped with a firearm to prevent further school shootings.

The suggestion follows the tragic incident out of Parkland, where 17 people were killed in one of the nation’s
deadliest school shootings.

According to reports, Judd is currently working with at least one school and is looking to train others following the
Parkland incident.

‘Game Changer’: Florida Sheriff Working With Schools To Train And Arm Teachers

 

https://www.sarahpalin-blog.com/2018/02/17/game-changer-florida-sheriff-working-schools-train-arm-teachers/

I agree with these ideas for defending against these threats, however, I think the intention of this thread is to come up with valid ideas on preventing the threats to being with.

Let's keep this civil.

...the fart left liberals...

This stemmed from another conversation but I think it deserves its own thread. Here is some of what I think the pro-gun rights groups can suggest for solutions to mass murder and gun violence in general. I say this because I think we have stonewalled too much and we look like we don't care and don't have any ideas. If we don't come up with something they will eventually overrun us and claim we never offered any input.

Let's keep this civil. This is to develop ideas, not so others can start a flame war. Present ideas and discuss them.


I think the first step though is to examine the way the two sides are communicating because right now most people aren't communicating, they are yelling back and forth. We can't be painting everyone as either one extreme or the other. They want to say we are all gun nuts thinking all crazy people should own guns and our side is painting them as someone who doesn't want us to be allowed to own a butter knife. We need to stop falling for and continuing this false dichotomy. Now we cannot force the fart left liberals to communicate nicely but we can avoid contributing to the degradation of the conversation. Sometimes when we meet their hostility with calm politeness then we can break down their defensive wall and actually communicate. This isn't a solution to the problem of course but it is opening the door to start.

Now I don't have very specific ideas yet but here would be the general themes I would suggest that pro gun people propose.
-Develop a system whereby someone with a serious mental health condition that is correlated with violence be evaluated. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
-Develop a system whereby someone who exhibits serious behavior issues that are correlated with violence to have their firearms taken away. Decision must involve involve a mental health professional.
     -The firearm revocation must have a limit, say a hearing involving the individual must be held within 4 days to decide whether there is cause to keep the guns from that individual. If no cause or no hearing, they get their guns      back.
-Develop a system where someone selling a gun, whether private or by a business, can make a simple check to see if that person can legally own a firearm. Doesn't need to be registration or tracking of the sale, just a way to check with authorities that the individual is legally allowed to purchase the gun. (I have been thinking about this one for a while to propose to a legislator here. I have more specifics but am just giving the basics here)
-Develop a system where information is shared quickly and efficiently across jurisdictions. We have something like that for people convicted of a crime but there are holes in the system. Consider ways to expand it to have people who are dangerously mentally ill.
-Implement a check and balance to the whole proposal where people can appeal decisions and get review after time has passed since some mental health issues go away.
-Consider more funding for mental health overall.
-Consider having more individuals who are dangerous kept in secure facilities. As part of this we may need to look at re-evaluating which ones go to prison and which ones go to a mental hospital.

These are just general directions to head, Of course the devil is in the details but we can brainstorm first.

For mental health in Hawaii, currently police can detain people if they are an immediate threat to themselves and others.  They are taken to a hospital for evaluation and involuntarily committed or treated and released.  Not sure if this is Hawaii specific.

This could be expanded to include non-immediate threats with the immediate confiscation of firearms with a 30 day court order with evidence showing mental health conditions with the likelyhood of violence.  Police can investigate their case further and request an extension by the court with further evidence.

There is a problem if another person in the household owns guns.  Would have to ensure the person affected by the 30 day order isn't able to access them.

A severe shortage of inpatient care for people with mental illness is amounting to a public health crisis, as the
number of individuals struggling with a range of psychiatric problems continues to rise.

The revelation that the gunman in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting escaped from a psychiatric
hospital in 2012 is renewing concerns about the state of mental health care in this country. A study published
in the journal Psychiatric Services estimates 3.4 percent of Americans — more than 8 million people — suffer
from serious psychological problems.

The disappearance of long-term-care facilities and psychiatric beds has escalated over the past decade, sparked
by a trend toward deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients in the 1950s and '60s, says Dominic Sisti, director
of the Scattergood Program for Applied Ethics of Behavioral Health Care at the University of Pennsylvania.

"State hospitals began to realize that individuals who were there probably could do well in the community," he tells
Here & Now's Jeremy Hobson. "It was well-intended, but what I believe happened over the past 50 years is that
there's been such an evaporation of psychiatric therapeutic spaces that now we lack a sufficient number of psychiatric
beds."

A concerted effort to grow community-based care options that were less restrictive grew out of the civil rights
movement and a series of scandals due to the lack of oversight in psychiatric care, Sisti says. While those efforts
have been successful for many, a significant group of people who require structured inpatient care can't get it, often
because of funding issues.

A 2012 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit organization that works to remove treatment barriers for
people with mental illness, found the number of psychiatric beds decreased by 14 percent from 2005 to 2010. That
year, there were 50,509 state psychiatric beds, meaning there were only 14 beds available per 100,000 people.

"Many times individuals who really do require intensive psychiatric care find themselves homeless or more and more
in prison," Sisti says. "Much of our mental health care now for individuals with serious mental illness has been shifted
to correctional facilities."

The percentage of people with serious mental illness in prisons rose from .7 percent in 1880 to 21 percent in 2005,
according to the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights.

Many of the private mental health hospitals still in operation do not accept insurance and can cost upwards of $30,000
per month, Sisti says. For many low-income patients, Medicaid is the only path to mental health care, but a provision
in the law prevents the federal government from paying for long-term care in an institution.

As a result, many people who experience a serious mental health crisis end up in the emergency room. According to
data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, between 2001 and 2011, 6 percent of all emergency
department patients had a psychiatric condition. Nearly 11 percent of those patients require transfer to another facility,
but there are often no beds available.

"We are the wrong site for these patients," Dr. Thomas Chun, an associate professor of emergency medicine and pediatrics
at Brown University, told NPR last year. "Our crazy, chaotic environment is not a good place for them."

Most hospitals are unable to take care of people for more than 72 hours, Sisti explains, so patients are sent back out
into the world without adequate access to treatment.

In order to bridge the gap between hospital stays and expensive community-based care options, Sisti argues for "a
continuum of care that ranges from outpatient care and transitional-type housing situations to inpatient care."

While President Trump and others have claimed a connection exists between mental illness and the rise in gun violence,
 most mental health professionals vehemently disagree.

"There is no real connection between an individual with a mental health diagnosis and mass shootings. That connection
according to all experts doesn't exist," says Bethany Lilly of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

Sisti says the stigma around mental health is "systematized" in our health care system, more so than in the public view.

Health care providers are "rather leery about these individuals because these people are, often at least according to the
stereotype, high-cost patients who maybe are difficult to treat or noncompliant," he says. "I think the stigma that we should
be really focused on and worried about actually emerges out of our health care system more than from the public."

For mental health in Hawaii, currently police can detain people if they are an immediate threat to themselves and others.  They are taken to a hospital for evaluation and involuntarily committed or treated and released.  Not sure if this is Hawaii specific.

This could be expanded to include non-immediate threats with the immediate confiscation of firearms with a 30 day court order with evidence showing mental health conditions with the likelyhood of violence.  Police can investigate their case further and request an extension by the court with further evidence.

There is a problem if another person in the household owns guns.  Would have to ensure the person affected by the 30 day order isn't able to access them.

I do agree we need to communicate but communication takes two willing participants. And I find generally speaking that most pro 2A discussions I see on Facebook and other sites (Not this site), that the pro 2A is very polite and trying to have a logical discussion with the other side and it is mostly the other side that is not willing to discuss this topic in a logical and polite manner. I observe most of the time it is the other side that goes down the rabbit hole so to speak. I'm not saying that what you claim here doesn't happen. What I am saying is that just from my general observations of this type of discussion on other sites, what generally occurs is exactly what you say should happen (Pro 2A side being polite and concise and open to listening) and it usually doesn't end well for the anti 2A crowd. As it is the anti 2A crowd that really doesn't want to discuss this issue. They are the ones stone walling. And it really makes no difference to the Anti 2A side how polite and how well the Pro 2A side presents itself.

What I find completely insincere and intellectually dishonest are those people who continue to say something needs to be done, but don't offer up any workable, doable and logical solutions that they can get behind and might actually be a compromise that both sides can get behind. Continuing on with the insincere and intellectually dishonest theme I find those that not only do not know what a good solution is, but what they do know is that the workable, doable and logical solutions that the pro 2A side offers will NEVER work. No one in this world can have any type of meaningful discussion with someone who is like this. I believe there is some common ground between both sides here.

I have even gone as far as to offer up a compromise in my discussions just to see where the Anti 2A people will go with my suggestion. And they completely reject any suggestions to a compromise I offer them. Even when that compromise gives them what they are asking for, they don't want to give our side what we are asking for. For instance, I have offered to ban AR-15's in exchange for allowing teachers to carry in the classroom. And the Anti 2A side KNOWS that banning the AR will work but allowing teachers to carry WILL NOT. I found that when I ask what they are willing to accept from our side in exchange what they want from their side I get mostly those who refuse to answer or the more radical ones are not willing to give an inch. Meaning they want us to give in to their whims but don't want to give an inch to us. This is no way to have a discussion. That is how I find out if a person is worth having this discussion with. I have yet to find anyone from the other side willing to compromise.

The other problem with your premise is that before an actual discussion can talke place between the two sides then both sides have to agree on a common theme. That theme is that this type of shooting is impossible to prevent. If someone wants to do this, there is nothing we can do to prevent 100% of them from happening. The biggest problem to coming together on discussing a solution is that one side understands the truth that it is impossible to prevent this sort of thing from occurring 100%. While the other side believes that this sort of thing is 100% preventable. Until the anti 2A crowd comes to their senses there will never be a productive solution.

This is of course only my observation. I know you disagree. In my 60 years of life I found trying to change the minds of those who are not willing to really discuss this topic is fruitless. Nothing good comes from this sort of discussion. The key to discussion of this topic is to first find someone who is open to listening and having an actual discussion and willingness to find a compromise is the key to finding someone to discuss this with. Both sides must first agree on the one basic premise.
Not trying to go off the civility track here. I find your premise a bit too utopian for the average person on the street. Not saying it isn't possible, but mostly unrealistic. And that is just generally speaking. I am sure there are plenty of people out there who is Anti 2A and is truly willing to listen to our side then work towards a compromise. I just have not found anyone like that yet. JMHO.