The next school shooter is out there, and he probably has a gun already.

And likely being carefully groomed and prepped.

And likely being carefully groomed and prepped.

The mistake for Florida is that Cruz didn't commit suicide. He changed his mind at the last moment.  New guy at the CIA will get fired.

-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.

This is already in place.  physicians need to report risk of suicide or violence against others if the patient reports it.  If they are medically adjudicated then it is supposed to be in the NICS.  Some states, like Wyoming, dont update NICS with this information (there are only 4 records on mental health from wyoming in NICS.  So the current background check system is broke. 

-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.

As we know from Hawaii, most mental health professionals are not going to weigh in on if someone can have a gun.  otherwise I would not have people thinking about spending a bunch of money to see me to get a clearance letter.
As the constitution says, we dont take a right away based on wheat a medical professional says.  If you want that, change the constitution.

-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.

In a hypothetical government, this would be fine.  In the real world police lie, destroy firearms and otherwise make it difficult to impossible to get a firearm back.  You should not have any trust that the police would follow a rule like this. 

-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)

we already have this.  NICS.  As I said above it is broken.  citizens cant get access to it. 

-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.

This is fine.  fix NICS.  chances of it happening?  very low.

-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.

this should be the case for any reason to take a right away

-Consider more funding for mental health overall.

good luck with that.  mental health care is not a very high profit business.  Hospitals remove inpatient mental health wards and replace them with more profitable wards like for cancer treatment.  There is a huge lack of mental health professionals as well.  More money does not necessarily mean better care

-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.

sorry.  Regan got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals.  There is no profit in it so plan a huge tax hike to bring them back. 

This is already in place.  physicians need to report risk of suicide or violence against others if the patient reports it.  If they are medically adjudicated then it is supposed to be in the NICS.  Some states, like Wyoming, dont update NICS with this information (there are only 4 records on mental health from wyoming in NICS.  So the current background check system is broke. 
As we know from Hawaii, most mental health professionals are not going to weigh in on if someone can have a gun.  otherwise I would not have people thinking about spending a bunch of money to see me to get a clearance letter.
As the constitution says, we dont take a right away based on wheat a medical professional says.  If you want that, change the constitution.

In a hypothetical government, this would be fine.  In the real world police lie, destroy firearms and otherwise make it difficult to impossible to get a firearm back.  You should not have any trust that the police would follow a rule like this. 
we already have this.  NICS.  As I said above it is broken.  citizens cant get access to it. 
This is fine.  fix NICS.  chances of it happening?  very low.
this should be the case for any reason to take a right away
good luck with that.  mental health care is not a very high profit business.  Hospitals remove inpatient mental health wards and replace them with more profitable wards like for cancer treatment.  There is a huge lack of mental health professionals as well.  More money does not necessarily mean better care
sorry.  Regan got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals.  There is no profit in it so plan a huge tax hike to bring them back.

Sorry, too, but where do you get that from?

Reagan was Governor of California, and in 1967, he saw a decline in the number of patients in mental institutions.  Therefore, he cut funding to help balance the budget there.  After 2 years, he saw the problem with mentally ill not receiving treatment rising again, so in 1969 he reversed his cuts and provided a record funding increase of $28 million to the Department of Mental Hygiene.

The mental healthcare responsibility had always rested with the states throughout the decline in mental hospitals in the 50s and 60s. 

Then President Kennedy signed the Mental Health Community Act.  This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients from the state toward the federal government. JFK wanted to create a network of community mental health centers where mentally ill people could live in the community while receiving care. JFK could have been inspired to act because his younger sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled, received a lobotomy and spent her life hidden away.

Less than a month after signing the new legislation, JFK is assassinated. He doesn’t see the plan through. The community mental health centers never receive stable funding, and even 15 years later less than half the promised centers are built.

In 1965, the U.S. Congress establishes Medicaid and Medicare. Mentally disabled people living in the community are eligible for benefits but those in psychiatric hospitals are excluded. By encouraging patients to be discharged, state legislators could shift the cost of care for mentally ill patients to the federal government.

Then, in 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act to improve on JFK's plan.  Interesting it was so close to the end of his term, as if it was something he did as he walked out the door for Reagan to deal with, or he was using it as a carrot to buy votes.  Either way, it was Reagan's baby to decide what to do with.

1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.

So, your characterization that "Regan [sic] got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals." isn't accurate.  That process started 2 decades before he was President.  By JFK and Carter trying to make mental healthcare a federal responsibility, the states are the ones who took that opportunity to withdraw previous funding.  That's what caused the centers to close.  Had the States gone back to funding what they previously did before JFK and Carter overstepped their boundaries (IMO, since healthcare is always managed by the states regardless of the funding source), you wouldn't have seen so many closures in the Reagan years.

As I highlighted in red, it was 1965 when the states started pushing the responsibility onto the feds under Medicaid and Medicare funding.  To blame Reagan 20 years later for state's playing hot potato with mental healthcare seems inaccurate.  Remember, Reagan was taking responsibility as California's Governor during 1967-1969 by correcting his budget cuts.  That's what the other states should have done for THEIR citizens and not relied on the federal government to foot the bill.

Sorry, too, but where do you get that from?

Reagan was Governor of California, and in 1967, he saw a decline in the number of patients in mental institutions.  Therefore, he cut funding to help balance the budget there.  After 2 years, he saw the problem with mentally ill not receiving treatment rising again, so in 1969 he reversed his cuts and provided a record funding increase of $28 million to the Department of Mental Hygiene.

The mental healthcare responsibility had always rested with the states throughout the decline in mental hospitals in the 50s and 60s. 

Then President Kennedy signed the Mental Health Community Act.  This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients from the state toward the federal government. JFK wanted to create a network of community mental health centers where mentally ill people could live in the community while receiving care. JFK could have been inspired to act because his younger sister, Rosemary, was mentally disabled, received a lobotomy and spent her life hidden away.

Less than a month after signing the new legislation, JFK is assassinated. He doesn’t see the plan through. The community mental health centers never receive stable funding, and even 15 years later less than half the promised centers are built.

In 1965, the U.S. Congress establishes Medicaid and Medicare. Mentally disabled people living in the community are eligible for benefits but those in psychiatric hospitals are excluded. By encouraging patients to be discharged, state legislators could shift the cost of care for mentally ill patients to the federal government.

Then, in 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act to improve on JFK's plan.  Interesting it was so close to the end of his term, as if it was something he did as he walked out the door for Reagan to deal with, or he was using it as a carrot to buy votes.  Either way, it was Reagan's baby to decide what to do with.

1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.

So, your characterization that "Regan [sic] got rid of the vast majority of state mental health facilities and hospitals." isn't accurate.  That process started 2 decades before he was President.  By JFK and Carter trying to make mental healthcare a federal responsibility, the states are the ones who took that opportunity to withdraw previous funding.  That's what caused the centers to close.  Had the States gone back to funding what they previously did before JFK and Carter overstepped their boundaries (IMO, since healthcare is always managed by the states regardless of the funding source), you wouldn't have seen so many closures in the Reagan years.

As I highlighted in red, it was 1965 when the states started pushing the responsibility onto the feds under Medicaid and Medicare funding.  To blame Reagan 20 years later for state's playing hot potato with mental healthcare seems inaccurate.  Remember, Reagan was taking responsibility as California's Governor during 1967-1969 by correcting his budget cuts.  That's what the other states should have done for THEIR citizens and not relied on the federal government to foot the bill.

Thanks for the clarification and details.  I'll admit I did not know the details and just a little like the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act that he signed as Governor.   Thanks again for the information

My opinion is still not to expect any expansion of mental health care now because I've seen the quality and quantity of it drop over the last 20 years.

Unconstitutional?

At the risk of starting another of your infamous "Wiping my butt with a hoop" diatribes, please explain to me how self defense using deadly force is "Unconstitutional".

I just finished reading about a kid in the Florida shooting that took 5 rounds, because he was holding a door closed to protect the other kids in the room. This kid has BALLS. He deserves to be treated like the hero he is, but, what if he hadn't been indoctrinated with the "Run, Hide, Fight" mentality?
What if he and a couple of others had the "Kill this Motherfucker and Save as Many as Possible from Him" mentality and took those rounds while they assaulted him with whatever weapons were available and beat him to death? How many might have been spared? If this was practiced on a consistent basis how many of the mass shooters that kill themselves afterwords would've opted to just avoid the confrontation and merely blown their own brains out?

My guess is we aren't going to find out anytime soon, because we're teaching our children to be cowards.

Look at how "Bullying" is dealt with now. The prevailing "Solution" is to have the victim "Tell Somebody", then the "Bully" gets some counselling. Then goes right back to bullying the same victim. Completely ineffective, because there is no cost or consequence to the bully. this is why we have a problem with this today.
 I'll never forget my first "Bullying" experience. There were two neighborhood kids that were making fun of me and threatening me. I went and told my Dad. He told me "You have to stand up to them, otherwise it will never end. Never be afraid to stand up for yourself, then they'll leave you alone." Sure enough, a few days later, those boys were yelling at me and making fun and decided to get in my face. I didn't back down. I fought those two to a stalemate. They never bothered me again. An important lesson I learned that day, I was 5 years old. This is why bullying was less of a problem then than it is now. The prevailing attitude has become "Tolerance" rather than "Nip it in the Bud".

We have to stop teaching and preaching "Tolerance" in regards to violence and aggression and start teaching people that they don't have to tolerate the violent aggression of others. You can take action yourself, in fact, you must.

You suggested beating them till the died a painful death. This would fall under cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited by the US constitution.

However if you simply meant that bystanders should do this then yes, the constitution wouldn't apply. Criminal charges could if the suspect surrendered and was still beat to death, but I don't think you will find anyone who would object to a necessary amount of lethal force to stop a terrorist.

I am glad you managed to end your bullying experience by standing up you them but I don't think such a simple answer covers everything. Look at columbine, those kids were bullied and they stood up against those who bullied them... by murdering a bunch of them.

Bullying is a complex social interaction and it needs more than just some hard nose response.

NO.  Brainstorming is designed to find an idea.  Here's the definition:  BRAINSTORM:  verb  produce an idea or way of solving a problem by holding a spontaneous group discussion.

Stop trying to lecture.  You don't know what you're talking about.

As for my ideas, if the "guns in the hands of good guys" policy was implemented in schools, it would prevent many incidents through deterrence, and it would limit carnage through active resistance.

If that one idea was implemented, we'd be able to evaluate how effective it is, and THEN see where other measures might also be needed.  If it's able to stop 80% of shooters, that'll reduce the number of less effective, more expensive solutions meant to prevent shootings and avoid guns in the hands of faculty.

You can brainstorm for ideas and you can brainstorm on ideas. Stop being difficult just because you want to troll me, you have taken up way too much time and space on this thread without adding anything of value. I asked you a simple question about what would you suggest outside of armed teachers and your answer was armed teachers.

Thank you.  Can this be shared?

Oh yes, please share far and wide!
The more knowledge we share the better off we are.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You suggested beating them till the died a painful death. This would fall under cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited by the US constitution.

However if you simply meant that bystanders should do this then yes, the constitution wouldn't apply. Criminal charges could if the suspect surrendered and was still beat to death, but I don't think you will find anyone who would object to a necessary amount of lethal force to stop a terrorist.

I am glad you managed to end your bullying experience by standing up you them but I don't think such a simple answer covers everything. Look at columbine, those kids were bullied and they stood up against those who bullied them... by murdering a bunch of them.

Bullying is a complex social interaction and it needs more than just some hard nose response.

Ready the Hoop!

I'm going to call Bullshit, again.

You really do have a terrible habit of cherry picking portions of a complete statement to fit your narrative, or do you just have issues with reading comprehension?

My point was obvious. While I can't say I'm "Opposed" to an officer "Accidentally" discharging 17 rounds into a murderer's head, you'll note that I did say that should one be captured alive they should be tried and hung on national television. The better to provide an example of what they can expect.
The point being that resistance should be the rule, rather than the exception. We've been teaching our kids to be victims since the 70's { I know because I was there when it started }. The result is adults that accept  cowardice as the "Norm". The only thing this is conducive to is perpetuating the problem.

As far as my "Bullying Experience", that was hardly the only one. That's just how I learned to deal with them. That method has always worked, and always will work, because at heart all bully's are cowards. Your contention that bullying is a "Complex Social Interaction" is bullshit. Bullying is simply one person attempting to establish dominance over another with intimidation. It has been this way since the beginning of human interaction. By lending credence to the notion that it's "Complex" you perpetuate the problem.

"The Columbine shooters were Bullied!" More Bullshit. { Where are my fucking waders? } OK, they were bullied, but hardly exclusively, and the "Bullies" had graduated the year before the shooting. I'll direct you to a paper by Peter Langman Ph.d. His conclusions were that Eric Harris had a "Disturbed Personality" and "Prominent Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Sadistic Traits". If memory serves, he was also on psychotropic drugs. The notion that bullying was responsible for his actions has been debunked Ad Nauseam, and  the fact is they participated in bullying themselves.

I stand by my assertion that you can't prevent evil, you can only kill it where you find it.

Our government has to lock a bunch of law makers in a room with pro-2a, anti-2a, lawyers, LEO (patrol cops, not high level officers who read reports), teachers, principals.  And not give up until a good and legal resolution is found.  This will be the only job of this "task force". 

Until the issue of phychotropic drugs is seriously studied and addressed as a major cause, only things being debated will be defense against, not prevention of.

Focus should be on violence (as in not specific to guns) and society in general. Not really covered, but I thought I read deaths from knife attacks are up. Yeah, not mass murders, so not same coverage.

For short term, not going to prevent violence. Can only try to deter. Make schools a less soft target, the next will be at a concert or other public event.

Pass a law to stop the media from using the shooter's name, likeness and guns used in their reports. 

They need to stop sensationalizing all mass shootings, including schools.  The only reason the media does it is to push the anti-gun agenda while emotions are high and to boost ratings.  Period.

We did it for suicides.  Studies showed when suicides were given prominence in news reporting, there followed sometimes multiple copycat suicides.  When reporting stopped, so did almost all copycats.

Pass a law to stop the media from using the shooter's name, likeness and guns used in their reports. 

They need to stop sensationalizing all mass shootings, including schools.  The only reason the media does it is to push the anti-gun agenda while emotions are high and to boost ratings.  Period.

We did it for suicides.  Studies showed when suicides were given prominence in news reporting, there followed sometimes multiple copycat suicides.  When reporting stopped, so did almost all copycats.

This is true.

Experienced it myself when I had to call in a guy who'd jumped from a parking structure in Waikiki { this was many years ago } and asked a friend in HFD why I didn't see it on the news.

Common sense solutions.

Stop "diagnosing" them as ADD or ADHD and pumping our kids full of amphetamines.How about giving back recess and allowing kids to use "schoolyard rules"? When kids have an unstructured physical outlet, they are more well behaved, can sit still and listen in class. Now its 8 hours of straight class time and no outlets except for rigid and "approved" games.  We had a lot less violence when kids learned how to resolve issues between themselves. Even if it meant having your ass kicked. You learned. Now we have an entire generation who thinks the only way to resolve an issue is through mass social media and if not there, exponentially bad lashing out at a society who thinks they've wronged them (school or other MCI shooting event). They are seeing that the next generation can't even make a simple decision on dinner without a social media exchange.

Ugh

I have two bullying memories from when I was a child.

When I was around 9 or 10 there were a couple bullies on my block and they were 16-17 years old. They beat me up regularly. I have two older brothers, one who is 13 years older than me. And he was back visiting my parents from basic training. I came home beat up and crying that day and my parents asked my brother to take care of the situation. He did. Their parents came to my parents house and complained and my father told them if they ever beat me up again he would sue them and told them to call the cops and slammed the door in their face. No cops ever showed up and they stayed far away from me after that.

When I was 6 or 7 and in elementary school there was a much bigger kid that started bullying me. He would wait after school and try and block me from walking home. I escaped a couple of times and cried to my parents. My father told me I had to stand up for myself. He also told me that when defending myself there is no such thing as an unfair fight. What he said was I can bite, kick, scratch and use anything as a weapon to defend myself. The next day the bully started hitting me while I was walking home. He kept on hitting me so I swung around with my metal lunchbox and whacked him upside the head. My thermos went flying and broke. The lunchbox had a pretty good dent and wouldn't close anymore. The bully was bleeding pretty good. My father was proud and immediately took me out to buy a new lunchbox. The bully's father came to our house later that night and my father threatened to beat him up if his kid ever touched me again and slammed the door in his face. The bully left me alone after that and other kids heard what happened and came up to me and told me they were happy someone beat that bully up as he stopped bullying them after what I did.

I learned a lot from those two incidents. Standing up for yourself and deterrence is the answer. Prevention is only possible in some circumstances and is not realistic in most cases. Bullies only understand one thing. Yes, violence or the threat of violence is the only realistic alternative when circumstances don't allow prevention. Which IMO is most of the time.

I have two bullying memories from when I was a child.

When I was around 9 or 10 there were a couple bullies on my block and they were 16-17 years old. They beat me up regularly. I have two older brothers, one who is 13 years older than me. And he was back visiting my parents from basic training. I came home beat up and crying that day and my parents asked my brother to take care of the situation. He did. Their parents came to my parents house and complained and my father told them if they ever beat me up again he would sue them and told them to call the cops and slammed the door in their face. No cops ever showed up and they stayed far away from me after that.

When I was 6 or 7 and in elementary school there was a much bigger kid that started bullying me. He would wait after school and try and block me from walking home. I escaped a couple of times and cried to my parents. My father told me I had to stand up for myself. He also told me that when defending myself there is no such thing as an unfair fight. What he said was I can bite, kick, scratch and use anything as a weapon to defend myself. The next day the bully started hitting me while I was walking home. He kept on hitting me so I swung around with my metal lunchbox and whacked him upside the head. My thermos went flying and broke. The lunchbox had a pretty good dent and wouldn't close anymore. The bully was bleeding pretty good. My father was proud and immediately took me out to buy a new lunchbox. The bully's father came to our house later that night and my father threatened to beat him up if his kid ever touched me again and slammed the door in his face. The bully left me alone after that and other kids heard what happened and came up to me and told me they were happy someone beat that bully up as he stopped bullying them after what I did.

I learned a lot from those two incidents. Standing up for yourself and deterrence is the answer. Prevention is only possible in some circumstances and is not realistic in most cases. Bullies only understand one thing. Yes, violence or the threat of violence is the only realistic alternative when circumstances don't allow prevention. Which IMO is most of the time.

In other words, you can't be sure the bully will change, so your best bet is to change yourself.  Even IF the bullies you have to deal with today are "corrected," what about the next, and the next, and that one over there, and the one behind you .... ?

In other words, you can't be sure the bully will change, so your best bet is to change yourself.  Even IF the bullies you have to deal with today are "corrected," what about the next, and the next, and that one over there, and the one behind you .... ?

Exactly. You can't change other peoples behavior. So you have to change your behavior in order to deal with this sort of thing.

Isn't this the reason why we want to conceal carry?

Exactly. You can't change other peoples behavior. So you have to change your behavior in order to deal with this sort of thing.

Isn't this the reason why we want to conceal carry?

We want concealed carry because we are old men and don't want to get robbed and killed.
I have a 26.5 mm signaling device in my vehicle so they can find me.