Latest: Carson City shooter described as schizophrenic.

[SteveM]

According to the L.A. Times, Eduardo Sencion the shooter in the Caron City I-Hop killings, was described by family members as schizophrenic with a long history of treatment.

"In 2000, Sencion was taken into protective custody by local police as part of a mental health commitment, the AP reported. He’d also been hospitalized for psychological troubles as an adult."

It is not clear from the article whether or not Sencion had a mental health hold placed in the NICS data base, or where and how he obtained the weapon used, which was curiously described as "...an assault rifle similar to an AK-47." The now-deceased shooter was reported to have "...'boxes upon boxes' of ammunition suitable for an assault rifle..."

It would seem Sencion should have been processed through the NICS system if he underwent "mental health commitment." However, even if he had a hold placed in NICS, he would have been flagged only if he had purchased the arm through an Federal Firearm Licensee. It also seems the news sources cited (AP, L.A. Times) are confused as to the type of weapon used, a point of some discussion in this forum several days ago.

[maxsolomon]

1. what a surprise.

are there additional measures the gun-rights DU'ers could support to assure that schizophrenics do not acquire guns?

[gejohnston]

3. how about the

family and community members who see it and do nothing? Had they done something, he would be getting help.

[maxsolomon]

4. obviously, that doesn't seem to be a solution.

or these tragedies wouldn't be happening over and over.

[gejohnston]

11. No, although I will

point out that such things are rare, just seems like they are common because of "if it bleeds it leads" corporate media. Of course, that means nothing to the families of the deceased. One of the gungeon members, who immigrated here, was visiting family in The Netherlands when this tragedy occurred some months ago. He added quotes from a couple of European experts. They make more sense than the usual talking heads we get on any subject.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=401308#401895

IMHO one major problem we have, to paraphrase Rutger Jan van der Gaag, "When someone finally gathers the courage to seek help, the last thing he needs to hear is that he can't be accommodated without paying upfront."

[iverglas]

5. how about

the potential victims should not have to rely on unknown members of the public who are under no duty to take any measures and are not accountable for failing to do so?

Had they done something, he would be getting help.

Really?

Do you have any idea what some families go through to try to get help for family members with schizophrenia?

And you're aware that the individuals in question are perfectly entitled to refuse such help?

[AtheistCrusader]

7. In some situations, they can be forced, actually.

One of the triggers for a NICS denial is an involuntary committment to a mental health institution for 48h or longer, in my state.

Under many instances, a judge may require they receive treatment, regardless of refusal.

[iverglas]

8. if they meet the criteria

We all know that the problem with schizophrenia is that once medicated, they cannot be held; once released, they cannot be medicated.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. True dat.

[X_Digger]

25. "accountable for failing to do so" -- like police are?

What, they might get suspended or placed on administrative leave? Maybe fired?

It's not like a member of the public can sue the cops for failing to protect him/her (at least and expect to win).

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

27. I said what I meant and I meant what I said

and I don't give a flying fuck who didn't like it.

I said: what the fuck are you talking about?

I said that the public should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers who ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE if they fail to get treatment for a mentally ill person.

I DID NOT SAY that ANYONE was or could be accountable for failing to get treatment for a mentally ill person.

I said that families are NOT accountable for failing to get treatment for one of their members.

If I say You are not a purple people eater, have I said The police are purple people eaters?

NO.


Why in the fucking fuck are you yammering at me about police?

Blithering on about how families oughta get treatment for individuals with mental illness, when no one is under any duty to do any such thing, amounts to precisely "too bad, so sad, what a shame that sometimes people with mental health problems kill strangers with guns, if only I cared". That's what it amounts to and all it amounts to.

And it has nothing to do with police.

But allow me to paraphrase you:

It's not like a member of the public can sue a stranger
for failing to get mental health services for a member
of their family.

There you go, you see: you had almost made sense.

[DanTex]

6. Yes, just like the right-winger solution for what to do if an uninsured person gets sick...

It's not the government's responsibility, it's the "community" that needs to do something.

[gejohnston]

10. Not even close

unless you have a thing against due process. The people around him would be the first to notice him going out there. That is what I meant by community and family. As far as the "government's responsibly for healthcare" if this is indeed a democracy, then We the People are the government. In that sense, We the People also make up the community. In that sense, the government is part of the community.
Although I do think universal mental as well physical health care would go a long way than some inane feel good law.
So how is single payer or socialized health care and his family being responsible for getting a loved one help (including using, if needed institutions, and functionaries of government) mutually exclusive?

[Atypical Liberal]

14. The government can't act on an unknown.

Yes, just like the right-winger solution for what to do if an uninsured person gets sick...
It's not the government's responsibility, it's the "community" that needs to do something.

I don't get the analogy. If we had universal health care, people would present themselves to "the government" for health care, so that the government could act and provide the care.

But the government can't act on information it doesn't know about. Unless the mentally ill person does something (like shoot up a bunch of people) that get them on the government's radar, the government can't act. The only people who can act are the people around the mentally ill person - his community.

Perhaps if we had universal health care, including mental health care, more people would show up on the government's radar who could then be denied the right to keep and bear arms through a broader criteria than just being adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed.

[iverglas]

15. "But the government can't act on information it doesn't know about"

With a licensing system, there is a hugely greater chance that the government will know.

First, the chances that a person with schizophrenia, or any other obvious risk factor militating against firearms possession, will apply for a licence to possess firearms are slim. This is the first screening effect. Someone with a delusional mental illness, someone involved in drug trafficking, someone who is an active participant in gang or organized crime activities, is far less likely than the average person to apply for a firearms licence.

Second, the licensing process will include some screening factors itself. In Canada, two referees must be given (as I recall). If the person acknowledges having a domestic partner/spouse or being recently separated, notice of the application must be given to that person, who must sign off in order for the licence to be granted (and if the person feels compelled to sign under duress, prominent notice is given of a toll-free number to call with concerns).

Third, a universal registration system makes it increasingly difficult, as time goes on and more firearms are registered (including all new sales), for someone without a licence to acquire a firearm.

We have universal health care. We don't rely on that as the sole bulwark against people who should not have firearms getting firearms.

Obviously, no system operates to achieve all its intended effects perfectly. Kimveer Gill, who plainly had some sort of mental disturbance, which would hardly have escaped the notice of his parents (in whose basement he spent his time playing with his guns), got the licence he needed to possess restricted weapons, even, and used them to kill one person and seriously injure several others in the course of an attempted mass murder at a college.

Our firearms system needs fine-tuning, and no matter how finely tuned it will never completely prevent harm, any more than any other set of rules and policies and measures does. But it does unquestionably reduce the risk of people with delusional mental illnesses possessing firearms.

[hack89]

19. Why should an ex-spouse have the ability to sign away my civil rights?

it is hard to fit that one under due process. If she can document actual threats or abuse to demonstrate potential harm that's one thing but what if she can't. What if she doesn't like guns, me or both?

Is there a process where a spouses or ex-spouses disapproval can be appealed?

[iverglas]

20. oh, I do get so tired of saying it all over and over

Information about the Cdn system is readily available on the net, in multiple previous posts of mine ... and my mum is due to arrive for a two-day visit any day ...

If a spouse does not sign off it is NOT a bar to getting a licence. It is a FACTOR considered in the application process.

NOTHING is a bar to getting a licence, except a firearms prohibition order expressly made (for some offences it is mandatory) by a judge as part of a sentence for a criminal conviction, that is still in effect. Again: there are NO blanket disqualifications to obtaining a firearms licence in Canada, other than age (with special licences for minors).

There is a review process available for all licence refusals, with the reviews conducted by a judge. I posted details once of a case where the decision was reversed, just as an example.

Why not ask for information/clarification first, or look for it, rather than start bellowing about your rights?

Spouses have the right not to get killed, if I may speak colloquially. If a spouse has reason to be concerned about their safety, then the other spouse should not have a firearm.

[hack89]

21. Did Pavlov have a dog named iverglas?

"Why not ask for information/clarification first, or look for it, rather than start bellowing about your rights?" - since your mind is made up and will never be changed, it is more fun to simply spin you up and watch the poutrage.

[SteveM]

17. Uh, you mean "It takes a village to raise a child?"

[SteveM]

16. Actually, if you were around a few years ago, there was a discussion...

over extension of the NICS test to all Americans, not just to those purchasing from FFL gun dealers. There was a general sympathy, IIRC, toward the notion, but great concerns with security of the data base. Many suggestions floated around: Keep it a government agency (as it is now), open the system up to privatization, let each state be responsible for the system, etc. Of greatest concern was the clearly "poisoned well" of gun politics; i.e., how can we expect a secure data base (no matter what type), when gun-controllers -- esp. those within MSM -- are constantly pushing to reveal the names of concealed-carry licensees through publishing supposedly secure web sites listing CCW permit-holders?

You may recall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plain_Dealer

"In 2005, the newspaper twice published lists of concealed weapon permit holders from the 5 counties around Cleveland. Editor Doug Clifton defended the paper's decision, sparking a feud with a pro-carry lobbyist group. State Senator Steve Austria called it abuse of the media access privilege, saying publishing these names would threaten the safety of the men and women who obtain these permits. An Ohio gun rights group then published Mr. Clifton's home address and phone number.<23>"

[spin]

23. I would still like to see that idea passed ...

Currently I will only sell one of my firearms to an individual that I personally know and who has a valid concealed weapons permit. I definitely do not want to see any of my firearms end up in the wrong hands.

The details would have to worked out on extending the NICS system to private sales but there are workable solutions. Unfortunately, this idea will be resisted by extremely conservative gun owners.

[slackmaster]

24. Most schizophrenics are not violent, and pose no danger to themselves or anyone else

Schizophrenics who are under treatment are no more likely than people in general to commit violent crimes.

...are there additional measures the gun-rights DU'ers could support to assure that schizophrenics do not acquire guns?

I believe that a more robust system of mental health care, and teaching people to be aware of the warning signs that often precede violent behavior by ANY person, would reduce the number of people who are likely to commit violent acts.

Schizophrenics who have not been convicted of violent crimes, discharged dishonorably from the military, adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed involuntarily to a psychiatric institution, etc. have as much of a right to own guns as do people who are not schizophrenic.

Sorry to rain on your parade of preconceived notions about people who have mental illnesses, maxsolomon.

[Atypical Liberal]

2. Another mass-shooter with known past pschological issues.

It will be interesting to see how he obtained his weapon.

[Katya Mullethov]

12. Another rigged NICS check?

interesting times aye ?

[hack89]

13. If he wasn't adjudicated unfit to own guns

then he purchased them like anyone else. Its that due process thing again.

[gravity556]

18. Didn't Loughner have similar mental issues?

Issues that put him in contact with LE on several occasions. He should have been placed on an involuntary psych hold by a judge. Being adjudicated mentally incompetent is a disqualifer to owning firearms legally. It will be interesting to see if the schitzophrenic had prior run ins with LE that might have led to his adjudication. Unless a mentally ill individual is dealt with by the courts, his rights stand as the same as the rest of the population.

Of course licensing is useless, as is registration (other than for confiscations) in preventing crime. Particularly since criminals have no qualms about breaking the law. Registration is able only to track a firearm (provided the police have the actual murder weapon in hand) to it's last *registered* owner. If a gun is stolen, the only way registration is usefull is in returning the gun to its owner-which happens anyhow without registration. And some asshole crook selling stolen guns isn't going to care if the purchaser has a license.

The only reason for licensing is so that the pro-criminal safety yahoos can arbitrarily set standards that are unattainable. Think of the old saw "Anyone who wants a gun is obviously mentally ill as demonstrated by their wanting a gun" that is such a favorite of the PCS mouthbreathers in this forum. Now imagine that they are in charge of setting standards for licensing. See the problem?

And the registration database in Canada was a total clusterfuck, eventually being dismantled due to it's ineffectivness as well as its astronomical cost.

No, unfortunately there's no legislative way to counter someone who, out of the blue, other than shitting all over the rights of the law abiding. Only way to deal with a nutjob like that is for the citizenry to be armed themselves. Had there been a single armed citizen in the restraunt when the whackjob started shooting, it might have gone differently. Oh, I know, the PCS folks will gleefully respond to that statement with the CCW holder in the building across 60 yards of open parking lot, but that only serves to showcase their utter ignorance about the realities of firearms. It would have been suicide to try and engage a man with a rifle while armed only with a pistol at that distance. Of course, reality means nothing to the folks trying to push their loathsome pro-criminal safety agenda.

[spin]

22. I agree that if I am 60 yards away from an individual such as Eduardo Sencion ...

while he is shooting people in a parking lot, I would be very hesitant to use my concealed weapon to engage him.

First, 60 yards is a LONG shot for my favorite concealed handgun which is a snub nosed S&W Model 642 revolver. The fact that the target was moving adds to the difficulty.



Perhaps with a different handgun such as this, I might have attempted the shot had I knew for certain what was happening and I had a clear shot without endangering others beyond my target.



edited for type