Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

At least 12 killed at California bar shooting

101 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

freetoroam
10 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Do you mean a gun license to own or carry? You definitely haft to have a license to carry in the state of California.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/concealed-weapons-permitting-in-california/

 

I mean a licence to own one and go out and buy one. Seems he did.

As for carrying one (with respect to all the victims,)  he was not intending to carry it for long, so a licence to carry one would not have concerned him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

i do not think you need one to have a shotgun, or a rifle, handguns yes, especially for carry, rifles otoh, only in NYC you need a permit. the rest of the country you do not.

Does someone who has been diagnosed with a mental health issue affect the rights to own a gun? 

We know not everyone with a mental health issue is going to go and cause a mass shooting,  but that is not the point, the point is all mass shooters have had mental health issues.

So when do the "specialists" draw a line? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
2 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

I mean a licence to own one and go out and buy one. Seems he did.

Oh you mean like they do in other countries, like in Australia. On a federal level, no, but in a few states they do.

Quote

“License to own”: Three states—Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York—require a license to own firearms (New York’s law applies only to handguns). Unlike a permit to purchase, a license to own a firearm must remain valid for as long as the person owns the firearm.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing/

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So when do the "specialists" draw a line? 

usually after something happens, or when someone has  been admitted involuntarily to a mental institution.  or when MHP sees an obvious red flag, but none of it matters if the diagnosis does not get reported to proper agencies, or conflicts with privacy laws.  it is not as simple as it sounds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
13 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Does someone who has been diagnosed with a mental health issue affect the rights to own a gun? 

We know not everyone with a mental health issue is going to go and cause a mass shooting,  but that is not the point, the point is all mass shooters have had mental health issues.

So when do the "specialists" draw a line? 

The issue with that is it stigmatizes mental illness even more. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, even the heavy hitters like schizophrenia, the majority are not violent. 

So I am not sure if a mental illness diagnosis would be a good way to ban people, I think more of a red flag law ( as in if you are shown to be a threat to society you lose it), and certain criminal offenses barring you from owning a gun would be better. 

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lets just allow everyone to carry, felons (they already carry illegally, so no change here) mentals, (they do not get flagged anyway, and vast majority is harmless), those that become problem will be taken out by someone on the spot, if everyone carries. if you are allowed to drive, you should be allowed to own a gun

https://www.facebook.com/DADDYGMOVEMENTS/videos/10205589117604467/

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


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

usually after something happens, or when someone has  been admitted involuntarily to a mental institution.  or when MHP sees an obvious red flag, but none of it matters if the diagnosis does not get reported to proper agencies, or conflicts with privacy laws.  it is not as simple as it sounds.

In this case (Long) the mental health 'specialists' did get called out, talked to him and

Quote

They called out our crisis intervention team, our mental health specialists who met with him, talked to him and cleared him

Even though they are saying:

Quote

Mental health professionals believed that he suffered from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), the sheriff said.

Something went seriously wrong. He also had lots of run ins with the police, how big does this red flag have to be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
10 minutes ago, aztek said:

lets just allow everyone to carry, felons (they already carry illegally, so no change here) mentals, (they do not get flagged anyway, and vast majority is harmless), those that become problem will be taken out by someone on the spot, if everyone carries. if you are allowed to drive, you should be allowed to own a gun

https://www.facebook.com/DADDYGMOVEMENTS/videos/10205589117604467/

 

I have to admit, if that bouncer Long first came across was armed - well Long may have not gotten very far. This is why they don't attack armed places. Not easy prey in their eyes.

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The issue with that is it stigmatizes mental illness even more. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, even the heavy hitters like schizophrenia, the majority are not violent. 

So I am not sure if a mental illness diagnosis would be a good way to ban people, I think more of a red flag law ( as in if you are shown to be a threat to society you lose it), and certain criminal offenses barring you from owning a gun would be better. 

As i said before, not all people with a mental health issue is going to go out and commit a mass shooting, but, all mass shooters did have mental health issues. And Long was diagnosed and seen by the 'specialists'. 

So do you take a chance that someone with a  MHI will take their medication and allow them to have a gun, or do you not take any chances and potentially save innocent lives? 

Quite frankly i would feel a lot safer knowing  the "heavy hitters like schizophrenia," do not have a gun. Too many lives have been lost because people with MHI were not deamed violent or a threat. 

This is nothing to do with sigmatizing people with mental health issues, it is about protecting lives, and in some cases, that of the person with the MHI.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have to admit, if that bouncer Long first came across was armed - well Long may have not gotten very far. This is why they don't attack armed places. Not easy prey in their eyes.

There were 6 unarmed police officers in the club, not sure why on a university student night, but thats not the point, is it posible Long knew this and that they would not be armed, was his target the officers and just fired at random after he let off the tear gas, it seems he was intent on suicide after he made his mark anyway? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As i said before, not all people with a mental health issue is going to go out and commit a mass shooting, but, all mass shooters did have mental health issues. And Long was diagnosed and seen by the 'specialists'. 

So do you take a chance that someone with a  MHI will take their medication and allow them to have a gun, or do you not take any chances and potentially save innocent lives? 

Quite frankly i would feel a lot safer knowing  the "heavy hitters like schizophrenia," do not have a gun. Too many lives have been lost because people with MHI were not deamed violent or a threat. 

This is nothing to do with sigmatizing people with mental health issues, it is about protecting lives, and in some cases, that of the person with the MHI.

 

well we can't really ensure that, just not realistically possible,  there will always be cracks in the system that such people will fall thru, illegal guns are in abundance, there is just no practical way to make sure those people you think are dangerous are out of reach of weapons. there are millions of felons\gangsters roaming streets armed, so your concern should be why aren't you allowed to carry, and protect yourself\others, while undesirables walking with guns and are not shy to use them. and police, gvmnt can not do anything about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Even if he was determined mentally ill, wouldn't he still be able to locate and acquire another weapon?  A pipe bomb in the confined spaces of a bar would probably have killed more.  If disarming mentally ill is important, shouldn't we be disarming all Progressives?  They have TDS :)  But still, the only solution is to have qualified people (not necessarily police officers) on the premises.  That's the only way to stop this stuff.

Share this post


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

There were 6 unarmed police officers in the club, not sure why on a university student night, but thats not the point, is it posible Long knew this and that they would not be armed, was his target the officers and just fired at random after he let off the tear gas, it seems he was intent on suicide after he made his mark anyway? 

Yeah that's ironic isn't it? I don't think California restricts police officers to carry while off duty, so why not a single one of them were armed is a mystery, but maybe the club owner prohibits any weapons inside his/her club? And maybe because of that club rule, Long did know they weren't going to be armed. On the other hand, maybe Long didn't know and assumed they were armed, because we've had people try to end their lives with final end acts of "suicide by cop" in the past. Good question!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
29 minutes ago, aztek said:

well we can't really ensure that, just not realistically possible,  there will always be cracks in the system that such people will fall thru, illegal guns are in abundance, there is just no practical way to make sure those people you think are dangerous are out of reach of weapons. there are millions of felons\gangsters roaming streets armed, so your concern should be why aren't you allowed to carry, and protect yourself\others, while undesirables walking with guns and are not shy to use them. and police, gvmnt can not do anything about.

Agree, but for those like Long who had not fallen through the system, then they should not be allowed to own a gun, posible he would have got one somehow, but the fact that he legally bought one seems crazy. 

There have been numerous threads covering another shooting, and many of them the guns were owned legally by either the shooter or the family, the gangsters tend to shoot gangsters not rooms full of youngsters or school children, not saying two wrongs make a right, but if the likes of Long had not been given the right to own a gun maybe 12 innocent people would be alive today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
14 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Yeah that's ironic isn't it? I don't think California restricts police officers to carry while off duty, so why not a single one of them were armed is a mystery, but maybe the club owner prohibits any weapons inside his/her club? And maybe because of that club rule, Long did know they weren't going to be armed. On the other hand, maybe Long didn't know and assumed they were armed, because we've had people try to end their lives with final end acts of "suicide by cop" in the past. Good question!

 

I think he knew they would not be armed, if he wanted to die suicide by cop, he could have done that on the streets where he knew they would have certainly been armed.

The other thing is, apart from why were 6 off duty officers in the club during a University student night, how would Long have known that? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

Reading a bit about him, could be he had a grudge against the young: he wrote this on a forum:

Quote

Maybe the ego got the better of me but it took only one time for a 19 year old D-2 athlete to talk down to me and tell me how to do my job that I realized this wasn't the career I wanted to head."

--

The gunman was a student at California State University, Northridge, majoring in athletic training from 2013 to 2016, but he did not graduate,

---

Police had several contacts with Long previously.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/11/08/us/thousand-oaks-gunman/index.html

 

He went to University and was knocked back by a 19 year old, coupled with his disregard to the law and likely a hatred towards the officers who 'interfered' in his life, all that and the PTSD, maybe we have a motive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griss47

Regarding mental health issues and gun ownership.  Where do you draw the line with determining which mental health issues would prohibit an individual from owning a gun and who would make that decision?  This might be a little long, but I think you will see my point at the end.

Many years ago, I was working for a large mortgage company that was experiencing financial troubles due to the mortgage crisis.  There were layoffs almost weekly and you never knew from day to day if you would have a job the next day.  I had worked for that company right out of college, so all my work experience was in that industry.  The entire industry was in trouble due to the mortgage crisis, so finding a job with another company was difficult at best.  At the time, my three kids were very young and (although my wife also worked) I made about 65% of our income.  During this time, I began to experience anxiety attacks.  Now, I haven't had an anxiety attack in many years, but the fact that I did is in my medical records.

Fast forward to 9 years ago when I began working for my current company.  One aspect of my job is to set up auctions of equipment belonging to companies that have gone out of business.  It isn't unusual for me to be alone or with just one other person in a factory or building in a very bad area of town while preparing the auction site.  I can't tell you how times I've been setting up an auction and heard gunshots, witnessed gang fights, seen a driver intentionally run another car off the road and flee, etc.  Because I have to be in these areas on a regular basis, I carry a firearm.  Thankfully, I'm generally very safe and have not once had to draw my weapon.  But, there have been a few occasions where I thought I might have no other choice.

So, because I have experienced a, "mental health issue" (anxiety attacks) should I be prevented from owning a gun for my own protection in these areas?

 

Edited by griss47
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Gun fetishism is a/the mental health issue. Period. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I think he knew they would not be armed, if he wanted to die suicide by cop, he could have done that on the streets where he knew they would have certainly been armed.

The other thing is, apart from why were 6 off duty officers in the club during a University student night, how would Long have known that? 

 

Did they say in any of the news report that he did know that? I must of missed that.

45 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Reading a bit about him, could be he had a grudge against the young: he wrote this on a forum:

 

He went to University and was knocked back by a 19 year old, coupled with his disregard to the law and likely a hatred towards the officers who 'interfered' in his life, all that and the PTSD, maybe we have a motive? 

Hmmm -  sounds like he may have had social issues as well. Anger turned to wrath?

 

33 minutes ago, griss47 said:

Regarding mental health issues and gun ownership.  Where do you draw the line with determining which mental health issues would prohibit an individual from owning a gun and who would make that decision?  This might be a little long, but I think you will see my point at the end.

Many years ago, I was working for a large mortgage company that was experiencing financial troubles due to the mortgage crisis.  There were layoffs almost weekly and you never knew from day to day if you would have a job the next day.  I had worked for that company right out of college, so all my work experience was in that industry.  The entire industry was in trouble due to the mortgage crisis, so finding a job with another company was difficult at best.  At the time, my three kids were very young and (although my wife also worked) I made about 65% of our income.  During this time, I began to experience anxiety attacks.  Now, I haven't had an anxiety attack in many years, but the fact that I did is in my medical records.

Fast forward to 9 years ago when I began working for my current company.  One aspect of my job is to set up auctions of equipment belonging to companies that have gone out of business.  It isn't unusual for me to be alone or with just one other person in a factory or building in a very bad area of town while preparing the auction site.  I can't tell you how times I've been setting up an auction and heard gunshots, witnessed gang fights, seen a driver intentionally run another car off the road and flee, etc.  Because I have to be in these areas on a regular basis, I carry a firearm.  Thankfully, I'm generally very safe and have not once had to draw my weapon.  But, there have been a few occasions where I thought I might have no other choice.

So, because I have experienced a, "mental health issue" (anxiety attacks) should I be prevented from owning a gun for my own protection in these areas?

 

Well have you made any terroristic threats to anyone? Were you deemed mentally unfit by a court of law? And therefore not allowed to own a firearm? See it's that threatening part from a person they don't like. There already have state laws on the books about that anyway. They call it Terroristic threatening.

 

24 minutes ago, toast said:

Gun fetishism is a/the mental health issue. Period. 

Anit-gun fetishism is a/the mental health issue. Period.

Double edge sword can cut both ways.

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

As i said before, not all people with a mental health issue is going to go out and commit a mass shooting, but, all mass shooters did have mental health issues. And Long was diagnosed and seen by the 'specialists'. 

So do you take a chance that someone with a  MHI will take their medication and allow them to have a gun, or do you not take any chances and potentially save innocent lives? 

Quite frankly i would feel a lot safer knowing  the "heavy hitters like schizophrenia," do not have a gun. Too many lives have been lost because people with MHI were not deamed violent or a threat. 

This is nothing to do with sigmatizing people with mental health issues, it is about protecting lives, and in some cases, that of the person with the MHI.

 

It would add another reason for someone to be reluctant about getting treatment and a diagnosis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griss47
4 minutes ago, Gunn said:

Well have you made any terroristic threats to anyone? Were you deemed mentally unfit by a court of law? And therefore not allowed to own a firearm? See it's that threatening part from a person they don't like. There already national laws on the books about that anyway. They call it Terroristic threatening.

No on both counts.  I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post where I was going. 

I was trying to convey to freetoroam that it can be a slippery slope.  Who would determine which mental issues keep someone from owning a firearm?  Once it's determined that Schizophrenics cannot, what's next?  People with Bipolar Disorder?  Okay, we are keeping those two groups from buying firearms, what's next? People with depression.  Now that people diagnosed with Depression cannot own a firearm, what about people who have experienced Anxiety?   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griss47
2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It would add another reason for someone to be reluctant about getting treatment and a diagnosis.

Excellent point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Did they say in any of the news report that he did know that? I must of missed that.

No.

They mentioned the 6 off duty officers in the bar at the time of the University student party,  and was trying to establish if that could have been part of his motive, if he knew they would be in there unarmed. Do not know,  was just an idea among others.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
griss47

I find in interesting that the off duty officers were all unarmed.  If I remember correctly, off duty officers here are required to carry, even in "gun free" locations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It would add another reason for someone to be reluctant about getting treatment and a diagnosis.

Why because they might not be able to own a gun? Is that really a issue? If someone with mental issues is concerned about owning a gun before seeking help, all the more reason why they should not be allowed one. 

Many of the people with mental issues did not go to seek help, example is Long had the mental health 'specialist' called in on him, they did not remove his rights to own a gun.

Anyone who has the MHS called in on them should be seriously evaluated for gun ownership. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.