Gunman near UCSB kills 6 people, injures 7

[AggregateDemand]

Just another mentally-ill kid with a gun, which has been illegal since 1968.

This guy's situation is a bit more intriguing because he's not complaining about obscure political nonsense or wayward ideological tenets. Instead, he's reacting disproportionately and violently to things that everyone complains about. Complaining about sane subject-matter doesn't make him sane. At the very least, he had severe emotional problems.

[AggregateDemand]

And yet he bought the guns legally.

Not surprising. We don't enforce the gun laws on the books. We write new laws that don't fix the problem.

[AggregateDemand]

Keep in mind that I say the following as a supporter of the right to bear arms.

Since as far as I am aware, no existing gun law was broken before he went on his shooting spree.  Nor were such laws broken in the case of Newtown.  So bringing out the canard that we need to enforce the existing laws before even daring to consider anything else is really really not helpful.  Now if you actually have something to say that pertains to this particular incident, please do so.  However, the enforce meme exists only to delay doing anything, and not just with gun issues.  So unless you have something relevant to say, either shut up or go on Fox News.

It is illegal for mentally-ill individuals to purchase firearms. This individual is clearly mentally ill. Therefore, we are not enforcing the laws we have on the books, and this is basically Jared Loughner Part II, though, we do not have a failed military psyche evaluation on Rodgers record.

[AggregateDemand]

Do you propose having everyone who wants to buy a gun first go through a mental health exam and be proven to be 100% sane?  Shall we also require a new exam each time someone buys ammunition or another gun?  How about certificates from a psychiatrist to be allowed to attend a gun show?

No, but I think as a bear minimum requirement, the federal government could at least require all federal agencies to report to NICS. Hopefully the private sector will follow soon afterward.

There is no reason to impose new regulations on sane law-abiding people, if the government hasn't even taken the most basic steps to insure that Firearm Control 1968 is properly enforced.

[AggregateDemand]

Hopefully?  Leaving aside the fact that your suggestion would have done nothing to prevent this particular incident, the idea that the private sector would voluntarily do as you suggest is so laughable that one must consider you either inhabit a libertarian fantasy land or—as is more likely since you sport a blue and not a yellow avatar—you simply don't want any additional gun regulation whatsoever under any circumstances.  I could respect someone who forthrightly put forward that opinion, especially since I'm dubious of additional regulation myself, but I can't respect someone who hides behind the weaselly "enforce the existing laws" meme even when the situation is not one in which better enforcing the existing laws would have accomplished anything.

I meant hopefully private sector regulation will follow, after the federal reporting regs have been ironed out and tested.

Improperly written gun laws introduce the specter of more danger, like the AWB in 1994, which led to massive importation of pre-ban equipment and growth of gray markets gun shows. Arms dealers, particularly those of the anti-government militia persuasion, were made wealthy and powerful by ill-conceived gun control regulation. If you're writing gun legislation, pro or con, you're still dealing with firearms, and the unintended consequences could be deadly.

Why should I have to state the blatantly obvious to qualify my opinion? I'm not hiding behind "enforce the existing regulations". Refusing to enforce the mentally-ill restrictions have been the origin of most of our recent high profile shootings, though, enforcement could not have stopped Adam Lanza.

[AggregateDemand]

What restriction was violated in this case?  Are you arguing that seeing a mental health professional for whatever reason should automatically disqualify one from owning a gun?  Yes, in hindsight, whoever he was seeing possibly could have done more, tho that assumes that the problems he evidenced when that professional saw him was something that should have caused him to be judged a danger to himself or others.

Rodger had a therapist. Last month, relatives called police to pay him a visit because they were worried about his mental condition. The man was mentally-ill. He purchased firearms. What extenuating circumstances are causing confusion? Granted, we don't know the timing of the therapy and the purchase, but it's somewhat moot at this point. The Isla Vista rampage is another example of government refusing to enforce Gun Control Act of 1968.

Personally, I don't think anyone in emotional or psychological therapy should be able to purchase firearms, particularly handguns, for a period of time. People diagnosed with schizophrenia or other serious mental-illnesses should not be able to purchase firearms at all.

The specific course of action is up to the executive branch; however, it seems quite obvious that society is enduring extraordinary cost by failing to enforce GSA 1968. I'm not sure how anyone could construe that postulate as hiding behind a legislative meme. Even after a member of Congress is shot in the head at point-blank by a man who failed a military psyche evaluation, the legislature still does nothing to make institutions report to NICS. The public doesn't seem to care about enforcing GCA 1968, though the mentally-ill jeopardize the 2nd Amendment (right) and the domestic tranquility (left). Even the NRA said that the mentally-ill provision is about the only part of GCA 1968 they support.

This isn't a meme. The lack of enforcement is a social calamity that the public ignores as quickly as possible so they can focus on tangential political totem, like universal background checks.

[AggregateDemand]

The NRA has also said they support background checks; guess what happens whenever people try to enforce them or enact them?

If you want the government to enforce something, you have to actually let the government make efforts to enforce it. It's like how the Right will often say "Look at how many taxes we have? We don't need to raise taxes; why can't we just enforce what we already have on the books!?" and then quietly work to undermine any effort to hire more people in the IRS so people can actually do just that. It's garbage. It's lies. If you want people to enforce the gun control laws already in effect in a harder fashion you need to hire more people (and hire the right people) to do so. If a bill was brought up specifically for that purpose it would get voted down as well.

It's reasonable to allege conspiracy, when one party has something to gain. Please explain to us how these rampages by the mentally-ill are in the best interest of the NRA and gun-owners. Even the gun and ammo manufacturers, who usually benefit from a spike in demand after tragedies, are not particularly interested in this kind of political exposure.

[AggregateDemand]

Guys, "Aggregate demand" believes Liberals are the reason the US doesn't have single payer healthcare. He's definitely not worth arguing with.

Republicans are the people who said we'd never pay for single-payer or nationalized healthcare. They failed.

Democrats are the people who vow to create universal healthcare once they get the money. They have the money, but we don't have single payer.

Democrats need to own up to their failures at some point. Republicans are all aware of the parties ineptitude regarding reform policy. Liberals don't realize that their own party is responsible for the abundant lack of progress, despite immense spending power.

[AggregateDemand]

There isn't a facepalm plamy enough for this post.

There's not a facepalm palmy enough for people who don't question their own party. Americans pay their taxes; especially on a per capita basis. Democrats had Congress and the WH. Instead of the efficient single-payer system they keep promising everyone, they created another vote-buying scheme in moderate clothing.

Regardless of whether or not you see the situation for what it is, it has little to do with Elliot Rodger anyway.

[AggregateDemand]

Republicans will always have access to entertainment as long as gun-control liberals, who rarely know anything about guns, continue to tell everyone the proper way to use guns and own guns. It's like letting children dictate driving regulations.

[AggregateDemand]

...but my concern is that the AggregateDemands of this world would then claim that those people know nothing about guns.

Sensible gun owners who want gun control, like me, are vilified as militia hurr-durrs by the left-wing purity movement, who are only interested in eliminating guns or achieving pointless political objectives.

We have two problems: organized-crime gun violence and high-profile mass murder by mentally-ill citizens. Democrats don't appear particularly interested in addressing either problem, thus, they never muster the votes to get anything done. Dems don't care because inaction fuels the right-wing conspiracy narrative that Democrats love to proliferate.

[AggregateDemand]

May I ask what kinds of gun control measures you support, specifically and in as much detail as you care to go into? Keep in mind that a ton of people meet medical definitions of mental illness who don't meet legal definitions, that the medical definitions aren't always indicative of whether or not somebody is dangerous because of the sheer staggering variety of mental illnesses out there, and also that a lot of the time it's easy to say it should have been obvious that someone was mad in retrospect.

I posted earlier that Gun Control Act 1968 needs to be enforced. The intent is unambiguous, and enforcement has only become an issue as the rate of legal committed mental patients has plummeted during the second half of the 20th century.

At the very least, I expect government agencies to report to NICS, and I'd withhold federal funds until they comply. When Jared Loughner fails a military psych evaluation, he should go in the system. When Grandpa has someone using his power of attorney to take care of him, he should be in the system. Medicare/Medicaid patients on certain types of medication are put in NICS. I'd like to see regulation on the private sector as well.

To deal with organized crime, which is mainly illegal purchases and illegally imported weapons, I'd end the war on drugs and transfer the money to a war on illegal guns.

The difficulty of enforcing the law is not my problem as a citizen. Lack of enforcement is infringing on my rights as a gun-owner and as a citizen entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government needs to get it sorted, and stop pandering to the useless shrill anti-gun lobby.

[AggregateDemand]

AggregateDemand, you know that enforcement of the Gun Control Act of 1968--while an admirable thing in and of itself--would not actually have done much to stop Elliot Rodger, specifically, right?

He was mentally-ill and he was seeking treatment. Gun Control Act 1968 was written for this reason. Unless he purchased the firearms before he started therapy or before a government agency realized his mental-illness, GCA 1968 would have prevented this mess.

What doesn't fix this situation is universal background checks or assault weapon bans.

[AggregateDemand]

That's not what the Gun Control Act of 1968 does because that's not what 'adjudicated as a mental defective' means.

I understand how adjudication works because I used to help people file for court adjudication so they could institutionalize their mentally-ill relatives. I also once acted as a contractor to help lawyers manage financial fiduciary for disabled vets. Several veterans managed to purchase firearms "legally" (clearing NICS) though they had obviously been adjudicated as mentally-ill.

What several people don't understand is that the rate of institutionalization for mentally-ill Americans has fallen 10-fold since GCA 1968, due to advancements in psychoactive drugs and psychological therapy. People are not less mentally-ill, and GCA 1968 is not less opposed to ownership by mentally-ill Americans. Instead, the executive branch and the legislature have not worked together to enforce a modern definition of adjudication, and the executive branch, in particular, has not used executive order to make agencies report the usage of mental health services and drug use.

Perhaps Elliot Rodger's situation would have required legislative acts, but it would be nothing more than a de facto enforcement of the laws as they were written almost 50 years ago.

[AggregateDemand]

Again: Is there any evidence that Rodger had any mental illness or anything specific and certifiable for which he was in therapy other than Asperger's Syndrome? Because I haven't seen any.

One month before the rampage, Rodger's family called the police because they thought he was a threat to himself and others. I doubt it was an isolated incident.

Mental diagnoses within the autism spectrum, including Asperger Syndrome, should probably preclude firearm ownership, anyway.