Shooting at Reynolds High School

I should probably clarify that I didn't mean to say that SSRI's are a direct cause of the shootings. I meant to say that mental health disorders are a definite problem in the shooters/knifers. My note about SSRI's are just that they are not good in that they really jack up the chemistry of the brain. There are suicide side-effect warnings (among other stuff like confusion, paranoia) included w/the pills.


IMO, I think there could be alternatives to some mental disorders; for example I've read numerous articles linking unhealthy gut-flora (bacteria in the gut) to be indicators or causes of OCD/ADHD/ADD. Soon as a person received a fecal transplant, or consumed a regime of probiotics it greatly affected their symptoms and in some cases removed them completely.

So, to answer your question: I believe there are. But in some cases, people are just fucking crazy and there is nothing that can be done. They've either suffered this issue from birth, or a genetic malfunction, or caused by ingesting chemicals which irreversibly damaged the chemical make up in their brain.

 

There is a difference between "understanding" and experiencing shot at or been around others killed by gunfire. Granted it's pretty anecdotal, but the people I know in that category generally are pretty open to the topic of gun control in some form. Having been around guns my entire life I am strong believer in the right bear arms, but I get frustrated when I see people use the second amendment as an excuse for irresponsible behavior. Just because somebody says that the high availability of guns is probably a significant factor in the number of school shootings doesn't mean they want to take away everybody's weapons. Not sure if this has been posted but Vox had an article about this issue yesterday and some of the statistics are crazy.

The United States has nearly twice as many guns per 100 people as the next closest, Yemen — 88.8 guns per 100 as opposed to 54.8 in Yemen.

Also in the same article

 

I will propose a change in the law to help with the issue of young guys shooting people.
I think it is a sensible change and should not conflict in anyway with the Constitution.

When any person is unlawfully harmed by a minor, the father of the minor, or the legal guardian if the father is deceased, shall be held accountable as if he personally cause the harm. Unless the minor is 15 or more years old, in which case the court will determine whether the father or the minor, or both are to be held accountable for the harm.

Fathers can not abandon nor divorce themselves from this responsibility unless another guardian legally assumes responsibly for the actions of the minor.

If you shoot your gun, you shall be responsible for the result, any gun period.


Perhaps fathers may need a little help from society and the law in dealing with a child with mental problems, no doubt he and mothers do now.

 

Equal Protection -- just the father?

How is the court supposed to determine whether the father should be held responsible? What's the standard.

By the way there is such a law in most states holding parents liable for intentional torts of their children, but it is capped at $7,500 or $10,000 or so.

What if the kid hates their parent? How exactly will this law help stop the violence? I am sure someone who is logical enough to decide to shoot up a school, will think long and hard about the financial implications of their parents after they commit violence.

 

Yes the Father, too many of these young shooter do not have a father in their lives but of course they have one.

No way does a diligent father (or mother) let a kid go off to school with weapon. He doesn't even let the kid go through life with enough hate to develop the plan.

I expect a judge to determine if the father did indeed perform his responsibilities in caring for the minor that he brought into this world by his actions.

A lot of kid think they hate their parents and many father don't put up with that shit. Too many just leave.

 

That would conflict with the Constitution

 

I can respect that.

I have personally never seen someone get shot in front of me, but I respect guns like 'no-other'. I own guns, I appreciate them, and I respect them. I've always been afraid of them when I was younger, my parents taught me to respect them and what you don't do with them.

But I still stand by the affirmation that one does not have to witness that type of violence to make someone respect the damage they do.

I also believe in laws that require more background checks, mental health rules, family history checks, etc. I think anyone should be able to own a gun and as many as they want, but I believe that there should be a much stricter check being done, as well as having to register it with county you live in. I can also get behind buying ammo in person and no longer selling it online. But I can see how black markets could take advantage of that very easily.

The locking up w/safes, and gun locks are okay, but that shit will never happen so I'd rather focus on the stuff that can change.

 

Do you want to explain why?

 

Edit: let me rephrase

!4th Amendment . . . Equal Protection.

Sorry for the way said it before, it's just that the 2nd amendment gets thrown in my face on here in so many snarky ways I thought it was my turn. But that was wrong and my bad.

 

I see no conflict with the 14th, but if you do spit it out.

 

Most of these young men shooting up school, malls and what all have one salient thing in common. They are young men attempting to reach manhood without a father in ther home or immediate lives.

"Milliron said he's known Jared's father, Michael, for more than 25 years. He said the Padgetts are a good family that "has had its ups and downs over the years," but that Michael Padgett is a "hard-working man." He said Jared's parents, Michael and Kristina, broke up four or five years ago."

"Padgett obtained the weapons from his family home. The weapons had been secured, but he defeated the security measures."

 

In general must apply the law equally and cannot discriminate against people or groups of people arbitrarily . . . i think your thought are a little archaic and couldn't imagine your proposal would pass the constitutional test.

Why make this against men only and not women?

I think this is the exact text of the constitution (I know you are into that)

Equal Rights Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.


Edit: I will say MA, I like the idea of holding parents more accountable and I also think fathers are more to balme . . . but you see the frustration that when you propose something that makes sense, a constitutionalist will be right there to challenge it

 

How do you know this individual did not have a father in his life or in the home?

 

A person could do insurance fraud with or without the registration of guns to the county. But, I understand where you're going with that example.

 

The shooters are all young men, damn near all with only mom in their lives. I do not want to hold women accountable for being father, it should be quite apparent this it doesn work all that well enough of the time.
You see the 14th amendment much differently that I do, I find no way to spin it and hold mothers equally responsible for filling the role of a father. She has equal protection under the 14th but that has nothing to do with equal responsibility in guiding progeny of her and the father. Think on it awhile, pretty damn silly to try and hold the mother and father equally responsible for all things to do with their children. They do bring different assets to the game.

 

I edited my post and probably didn't see it but how do you get around this language:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

 

Easy. Rights are not at issue, responsibility is at issue.

 

This handy infographic should help.

 

I say the same thing about guns! Strict control because rights aren't at issue, life and death is at issue.

How do gay couples come into play? Two women adopt? Two men adopt? Surrogacy program? Sperm banks?

I am no constitutional expert . . . but your suggestion would never survive a constitutional challenge.