Jump to content
SJG

Fl School Shooting & Mental Health

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Silence Dogood said:

Well doesn't that say it all! That tipster must have been ready to go public. I can't see the FBI bringing this out voluntarily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, raz-0 said:

So, given that it looks like we have yet one more shooter on meds, and the LV shooter was on meds, what are my fellow 2a peeps feelings on regulations surrounding that? 

Should the 4473 be amended to make being on SSRIs or other specific prescription drugs a disqualifier just like illegal drug dependency? 

Should they be made schedule 1 drugs? Is there benefit worth the risk? 

Do you think more public funding of mental health care needs to be put back in place? I can tell you for a fact and from experience with a relative, that as public funding for care was reduced over a 20+ year span in NJ, the ability or willingness of judges to remand individuals arrested for their behavior to evaluation has dropped off significantly. Most families can't afford to get the people they know are a problem locked up for everyone's good, and there isn't much point going to the police or court to get permission to do so anyway if you can't foot the bill 100%. 

I don't like taxes in general, but there's taxes for the sake of lining people's pockets, and there are taxes everyone benefits from communally. Keeping certain fucker off your lawn, out of your schools, etc. is one of those valuable but invisible services IMO. I'd rather be paying for that than lining cronies' pockets for jack. I'd also rather not bypass the judge. Just set it up so that going to court over such things isn't a near guaranteed waste of everyone's time and money. 

 

No!  I do not agree with changing the 4473.  The bottom line is simple, treat those who are mentally ill and block their access to guns via NICS.  If we start going down the path of more gun restrictions based on the perception of illness due to medications taken we will live to regret it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I wonder what the incidences were...? And when they happened? Was this at his mom's house

Yes.

His adoptive mother refused to believe her son was causing trouble.

The last line in the second quote says it all.

 

Quote


Some in the affluent neighborhood where Cruz grew up said they called authorities on him frequently. Every few weeks, it seemed, police cruisers were pulling up to the teenager’s house to sort out the latest complaint.

Quote

“People were afraid of him,” said Brody Speno, 19, who grew up on the same block.

“Just about everybody on this part of the street had a run-in with him,” said longtime neighbor Malcolm Roxburgh, who lived just three houses down.

His hostility stuck out in this calm, well-to-do neighborhood of manicured lawns and sprawling tony homes.

Cruz picked fights with other kids. He stole people’s mail. He threw rocks and coconuts and vandalized property, neighbors said. He lurked at late hours along drainage ditches running along the back yards of their houses. One woman said she caught him peeking into her bedroom window. Another caught him stealing their bike.

“Lynda dealt with it like most parents did. She was probably too good to him,” said Kumbatovic. “She made a beautiful home for them. She put a lot of effort and time into their schooling, their recreation, whatever they needed. . . . She went over and above, because she needed to compensate for being a single parent.”

A classmate through elementary and middle school, Brody Speno waited every day with Cruz to catch the bus to school. Then one afternoon about five years ago, when they both were teenagers, Cruz started throwing eggs at Speno’s car with no warning, Speno recalled. He and a friend chased Cruz back to his house.

“We were pissed off, so we knocked on the door and his mom came out,” Speno said. When the two told her what happened, Cruz’s mom had a strange reaction.

She said, ‘No, my son would never do that. He’s inside sleeping,’ ” Speno recalled.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Ugh! I know! I was just coming on to post that. This is soooo tragic! It could (should) have been prevented. All that "see something, say something" looks pretty silly now. People WERE saying something. Horrible.

0-2 lately for the fed. I’m trying to find the tweet discussed on 101.5 bout states that actually contribute to nics. It was from a former FBI agent.

 

when rush limbagh is right, I’m nervous as a long tailed cat in a rocking chair factory.

not good

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I just wanted to share 2 more articles before I run out on an errand... here's a fascinating take on how another country handles it, Israel. I found the contents logical and hard to disagree with! I particularly like that it includes student training as a component - engaging them in protecting themselves rather than leaving them to cower or running in a panic like sheep to the wolves.

Why NOT give kids the knowledge and techniques to protect themselves? What could be a harder target than a school with an adequate number of well-trained, ARMED guards and a student body that's been taught self-reliance, teamwork and has been conditioned to fight tooth and nail? I'm sorry, but "hardening the target" is one thing that the U.S. must consider!

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/02/15/follow-israels-already-proven-lead-dealing-school-shootings/

Here's the other article. Kind of a nice piece - in the face of all this horror - about the smart reactions of 2 JROTC folks on the campus:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/02/16/junior-rotc-students-heard-stoneman-high-school-shooters-first-shots-followed-amazing/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PK90 said:

[puts on tinfoil hat] Hmmmmm. I wonder if the FBI knew this was going to happen, and wanted it to, just to make the Trump Admin look bad and to ban guns. [/rips off hat and shakes head]

You doing topsy tervy farming out their in arid zona?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PK90 said:

[puts on tinfoil hat] Hmmmmm. I wonder if the FBI knew this was going to happen, and wanted it to, just to make the Trump Admin look bad and to ban guns. [/rips off hat and shakes head]

The thought had crossed my mind.  With proper training in social engineering, it is not at all difficult to manipulate an easily influenced person. The more troubled the person (useful idiot) the more easily they are manipulated.  With all the social media we have today, anyone can find the right useful idiot to exploit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PK90 said:

[puts on tinfoil hat] Hmmmmm. I wonder if the FBI knew this was going to happen, and wanted it to, just to make the Trump Admin look bad and to ban guns. [/rips off hat and shakes head]

put the hat back on. they can read your thoughts otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[puts on tinfoil hat] Hmmmmm. I wonder if the FBI knew this was going to happen, and wanted it to, just to make the Trump Admin look bad and to ban guns. [/rips off hat and shakes head]

Hell, I’ll take it one step further and say it was paid and planned by the demtards. I won’t put anything past them anymore. OR, Funded by George Soros with the blessing and aid of Bloomturd.[emoji6][emoji481]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silence Dogood said:

Reading this made me physically ill.

Here we are, generally good and law-abiding citizens, trying to pick apart the minutia of gun ownership so that future murders can be avoided, some even ready to compromise our minimal 2A rights to theoretically save others (that is *not* meant as a snarky comment), and the FBI fucking knew.

There's really nothing left to say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gunsrlegal said:

Reading this made me physically ill.

Here we are, generally good and law-abiding citizens, trying to pick apart the minutia of gun ownership so that future murders can be avoided, some even ready to compromise our minimal 2A rights to theoretically save others (that is *not* meant as a snarky comment), and the FBI fucking knew.

There's really nothing left to say.

Well put mam 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Gotta love CNN. Interviewing the kids (HS students) about the FBI failure.  Narrative was “Yeah, the FBI messed up but we don’t care.  They should still do gun control”. 

This and the complete backlash against 1st Amendment rights that we're seeing as well --- this is what we're reaping from the continuous leftward lurch in educational ranks over the least few decades... as evidenced by the removal of civics education, ROTC being tossed to the curb... all that disrespect towards foundational American principles has left us with this group of brainwashed, dependent, manipulated kids led around by the nose by their teachers who happen to simply DISDAIN this country. What a mess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Gunsrlegal said:

 

Wait a minute, slow down there. So the "strong evidence" that mass shooters are on "psych meds" equals denying 2A rights to an entire population of people who might take/have taken an SSRI? Then, "the rest of us" can have our 2A rights? That's painting a fairly large population of people with a very broad brush in order to deny them a constitutional right. That sure sounds like something most of us rail against when it's applied to anyone who owns a gun.

Why is that acceptable while taking away everyone's 2A rights is not acceptable?

Who gets to decide the definition of "psych meds"? Do we have an age cut-off for these meds (like under the age of 30, 50, 60) or does it apply to everyone? Does it apply to someone who was taking a "psych med" for a short time for a specific reason? To someone who has been on a "psych med" for years and who has stayed stable and compliant? To someone whose medical doctor is willing to state that the person can safely own a firearm?

What happened to everyone who shouts that there can be no compromise because the anti-2As will just keep taking away our rights---the rights of every gun owner?

At this point it looks like some gun owners now find it acceptable to throw other gun owners under the bus. Most mass shooters are males (who may be taking "psych meds"), so maybe we should take the next logical step and ban all men from owning a gun.

Wow. Just wow.

Whoa, I've been officially taken to the woodshed!  

Your points are well-taken, but keep in mind that I was posting a couple of sentences on a gun forum, not writing an outline for legislative action. 

Perhaps I should have said that since virtually every mass shooter is a young man on psychotropic meds, maybe they should be given extra scrutiny before they can obtain a weapon. Would that have been more palatable?

Mental health is tricky.  Most people with mental health issues are not violent.   Then you get a maniac like this guy, who clearly should never have been able to obtain a firearm. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

Whoa, I've been officially taken to the woodshed!  

Your points are well-taken, but keep in mind that I was posting a couple of sentences on a gun forum, not writing an outline for legislative action. 

Perhaps I should have said that since virtually every mass shooter is a young man on psychotrophic meds, maybe they should be given extra scrutiny before they can obtain a weapon. Would that have been more palatable?

Mental health is tricky.  Most people with mental health issues are not violent.   Then you get a maniac like this guy, who clearly should never have been able to obtain a firearm. 

 

And he wouldn’t have, if proper protocol was followed by authorities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many states have enacted so-called "red flag" laws (also under consideration in FL presently) which permit law enforcement( assuming they act on a report/tip) to investigate and in the event the individual who is the subject of the "red flag" is a gun owner,   the State in a hearing before a judge (if contested) can seek a court order to seize any firearms owned by the person who is being red flagged until such time as the person is no longer a threat. There are variations on the burden of proof where restoration of the firearms is sought. Do you think these laws are a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

Whoa, I've been officially taken to the woodshed!  

Your points are well-taken, but keep in mind that I was posting a couple of sentences on a gun forum, not writing an outline for legislative action. 

Perhaps I should have said that since virtually every mass shooter is a young man on psychotrophic meds, maybe they should be given extra scrutiny before they can obtain a weapon. Would that have been more palatable?

Mental health is tricky.  Most people with mental health issues are not violent.   Then you get a maniac like this guy, who clearly should never have been able to obtain a firearm. 

 

Much better, @Old Glock guy. Sorry, didn't mean to take you to the woodshed. :) 

It's just that I know a number of people who are on an SSRI/antidepressant (none of whom are young men) and I've seen their lives improve so much that sweeping statements about it get to me. I would trust any of them with my life...well, maybe not literally, but you know what I mean.

I do agree that mental illness is a serious problem and much more needs to be done in general and as related to gun ownership. However, there's a huge difference between someone being treated for mild depression versus someone diagnosed with schizophrenia, at least IMHO. I wish I knew the answer as to how to sort it all out.

However, now we learn that the SSRI debate is moot in this case. This POS is seriously mentally ill and violent. People knew. Local police knew. School officials knew. The FBI knew. His multiple firearms were on record and pictures were posted on public forums. And no one in any position of authority did a damn thing to stop him before he killed and maimed people.

Now I wonder how much may have been known about other mass killers before people were murdered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gunsrlegal said:

However, now we learn that the SSRI debate is moot in this case. This POS is seriously mentally ill and violent. People knew. Local police knew. School officials knew. The FBI knew. His multiple firearms were on record and pictures were posted on public forums. And no one in any position of authority did a damn thing to stop him before he killed and maimed people.

Now I wonder how much may have been known about other mass killers before people were murdered.

Which leads to the "tin foil hat" question........Would some in our government turn their heads and allow innocent people to die in order to fulfill their agenda? Is it possible that anyone could be that cold-hearted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

Which leads to the "tin foil hat" question........Would some in our government turn their heads and allow innocent people to die in order to fulfill their agenda? Is it possible that anyone could be that cold-hearted?

This is a rhetorical question, right?  Money is power, power is money.  Politics, religion, organized crime, criminal justice, banking and finance, construction, waste removal, there is nobody at the top in any of the aforementioned who does not have some blood on their hands. Where there is money, avarice will find it and do whatever it takes to obtain as much as they can at any cost.  Some people make money the same way race car drivers earn a living.  They are literally willing to put their lives on the line because their lust for power is so overwhelming.  A man wearing a $12,000.00 business suit does not look like the type, but they live dangerous lives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...