Man shoots four co-workers, two fatally, at Fresno poultry plant

we should instead make being mentally ill illegal.

With enough laws we'll finally create a world where people never just snap.

even when it's free

...that they have a condition that may be treatable. That is the case with my friend who committed suicide in January.

She refused to seek help for what presented as apparent major depression. I begged her for months to take advantage of services offered by the county for free, and offered to help her pay for any treatment program.

She was convinced that her state of mind was a result of her environment, and that being depressed was reasonable. Many people who are depressed say just that, but what they fail to understand is that even "situational" depression can often be treated successfully with medication or a combination of medication and therapy.

I had the police pick her up on December 7, interrupting an apparent suicide attempt. She was placed in a lock-down hospital and tended by a psychiatrist, at least one psychologist, a social worker, and nurses who are all experienced professionals. They couldn't get through to her, she would not agree to treatment. After almost 10 days she figured out the right things to say to get herself released.

She apparently made a deal with them - In exchange for freedom she had to agree to a program of treatment that included taking an anti-depressant medication and seeing a psychiatrist at a clinic that specializes in treating difficult cases including Borderline Personality Disorder. (An experienced psych nurse who is a friend of mine suggested that as a possible diagnosis weeks before her melt-down. It turns out he was probably correct.)

She didn't take her medication. She didn't go to her first appointment with the psychiatrist. The police were sent to check on her and found her at home, but there was nothing they could do. She wasn't presenting an obvious danger to herself or others, she wasn't breaking any laws, so they had to leave her alone.

Her refusal to accept treatment had nothing to do with the stigma of mental illness. She had given up.

I helped her family by taking custody of about half of her belongings after we cleaned up her apartment. I went through everything carefully to make sure I found important financial documents, photos, or anything else that might be of interest to someone. She never threw anything away, and her invoices and correspondence told a tragic story. She had been struggling with mental illness for at least the last 20 years of her life. Various doctors who were not qualified to treat mental illness took half-assed measures, prescribing drugs for depression, or OCD, or approaching her issue as an eating disorder.

They were all wrong. By the time she got to a competent psychiatrist, she was too far gone.

By juxtaposing the historical place of rage in America with the social climate that has existed since the 1980s — when Reaganomics began to widen the gap between executive and average-worker earnings — the author crafts a convincing argument that these schoolyard and office massacres can be seen as modern-day slave rebellions. He presents many fascinating and unexpected cases in detail. Like slave rebellions, these massacres are doomed, gory, sometimes even inadvertently comic, and grossly misunderstood. Taking up where Bowling for Columbine left off, this book seeks to set these murders in their proper context and thereby reveal their meaning.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1932360824/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1352302900&sr=8-7π=SL75

That's an uncommon gun.

GOSIA WOZNIACKA
The Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 4:00 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 4:07 p.m.

FRESNO, Calif. — A parolee who killed two people and wounded two others on Tuesday at a California chicken processing plant where he worked moved methodically between his first three victims, putting a handgun against their head or neck before pulling the trigger, police said.

Lawrence Jones then shot 32-year-old Fatima Lopez in the back as she tried to flee then put the gun to the head of Estevan Catano and pulled the trigger but was out of bullets, Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said.

Jones, 42, then went outside the Valley Protein plant, where he reloaded his gun, shot himself and died later at a hospital, the chief said ...

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20121106/WIRE/121109815

authorities said. In 1994, he was sentenced to 13 years in prison for robbery, then released on parole in 2001, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Jones also served time for robbery and later for vehicle theft and other convictions, and was paroled on June 1, 2011, department spokesman Luis Patino said. He was discharged from parole on May 1, 2012, Patino said ...

Motive Unclear in Shooting at Calif. Chicken Plant
By GOSIA WOZNIACKA Associated Press
FRESNO, Calif. November 7, 2012 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/motive-unclear-shooting-calif-chicken-plant-17662631

and it is kind of a rare gun. Guns are easy to get in Toronto and London too.

Someone is responsible for this man getting a gun. I'd like to know who that person was.

might not prevent every rampage by gun owners, but would decrease availability.

As for HD, how would you prevent future governments from abusing the registration lists. Remember that it has already happened in both California and New York.

And yes, mandatory registration automatically leads to confiscation. That's why all of our cars have been confiscated.

car registration is for revenue generation. Gun registration does not, nor does it actually do anything for public safety either.

The purpose of car registration is to determine ownership of the vehicle. That is also the purpose of firearms registration, and very good case can be made that this is in the interests of public safety, since it would provide a mechanism for proving criminally irresponsible gun ownership (straw sales).

Registration does not determine the ownership of a vehicle, the title does that, I can register a vehicle owned by another party in my name as long as both parties agree, registration is a revenue generator.

nt

Most guns used to kill people are probably purchased illegally or stolen. Do you honestly wonder how people manage to buy things which are illegal? As is pointed out often, those who purchase handguns legally are law abiding and rarely use their guns to kill. If you were intent on murder, why would you care about the legality of obtaining a gun?

...since it is illegal to murder, illegal to buy a gun to use to murder, illegal for the average murderer (usually they're felons with lots of criminal history) to buy, own or carry a gun and illegal for said individual to buy or own ammo, why would any new laws be more effective than that batch we already have?

As Slackmaster pointed out, we have a 10 day waiting period in California. Not a new law, just a different law, which makes sense. Why the urgency, when a waiting period might save a number of lives, especially the lives of those going through severe depression or a psychotic episode? Think about it.

a demonstrated need for a gun will die before they can acquire one?

If that determined, I'm sure they'll find a way. If they need one for some other purpose that can't wait 10 days, then I suggest they explore their options. Borrow one, buy one illegally (about as easy as buying reefer), find a hole to hide in or seek professional help.

But you knew that.

Hold on Mr Thug, I'll be right back

Yep! There's nothing like thinking ahead, is there? Of course, some people might say, "Could you just lean on that baseball bat while I run home and fetch my gun." And then there are others who just avoid those kinds of situations. I'm guessing we both fall into the latter category.

who might feel the need to buy a gun the same day they evict an angry spouse and get a temporary restraining order, receive a threat in a neighborhood that's gone downhill, or feel the people that robbed them yesterday might come back for more tonight.

That's a good reason for the 10 day "cooling off" period. We have friends, family, women's shelters and locksmiths and numerous other options to consider before running out to buy our first gun in a state of panic.

Doors can be kicked in. That is assuming the obsessed angry stalker is scrupulous enough to only target a woman at home. And assuming there is a women's shelter, I doubt it looks like a three star hotel. A great many women cannot afford the disruption to their lives that decamping to a separate location would involve. Why should she abandon her possessions and life routine because she has been threatened? Your facile solutions ignore the reality of people's lives in favor of your ideology.

You must be kidding. I don't have solutions for hypothetical scenarios. My advice is to always consider one's options in any situation, rather than opting for a "facile solution", such as buying a gun. It doesn't get much more facile than that.

"A great many women cannot afford the disruption to their lives that decamping to a separate location would involve. Why should she abandon her possessions and life routine because she has been threatened?"

This leads me to think you have had little experience with battered women, especially those in fear of their lives. Using a gun to solve their problems, is likely to result in a far greater "disruption to their lives that decamping to a separate location".

As far as my "ideology" is concerned, it is about de-escalation in such situations, rather than impulsive, emotional, reactionary, direct confrontation.

When I used "we", it was in context of Slackmaster's post about California. Maybe these options are not available in your neck of the woods (pardon the pun).

is to survive the encounter. If you come up with a foolproof 100% effective way to keep that encounter from happening you'll have something. Until then we're left with scenarios, one of which is that enough planning will avoid the encounter, and there will be time to do that planning.

I'm trying to imagine how one might do that. Maybe, if one had a pause button which allowed them to take some time out to go buy a gun, learn how to use it, return to said encounter and use it. If a relationship is so volatile as to necessitate evictions and guns, it might behoove the aggrieved party to plan ahead. These situations rarely go from domestic bliss to "gotta buy me a gun" in less than 10 days.

Anyway, that was the thinking by CA lawmakers and I support that kind of thought processing.

but not always possible. It's impossible to legislate such a fluid and unpredictable set of circumstances.

That implies that you think she is going to go looking for the guy after she buys it. The reality is that she is buying it in the event of direct confrontation, in which case de esculation probably isn't possible.

The implications of buying a gun on emotional impulse are potentially many. The "reality" you bring up is one possible reality.
Logic dictates that if one has the time to go buy a gun and learn how to use it, one has the time to de-escalate the situation. For those who don't want to wait 10 days, then they should either be more prepared or take a bus, train or car to good old Arizona, just a few hours away, where they are probably handing out guns at the border these days.

You are not very familiar with the Gun Control Act are you?

I'd rather have universal opt-out licensing.

They're buying a fucking gun. If they need one that fast, then they are probably planning to inconvenience someone else. They always have the option of going to Arizona and getting one the same day.
"Why inconvenience people?" boy, you are a hoot!

Where would he go in Arizona? Look through classified ads for private sales and hope the guy doesn't ask for ID?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968#FFL_System

They're buying a fucking gun. If they need one that fast, then they are probably planning to inconvenience someone else.

Or, you know, they might be in some kind of emergency situation where they feel their safety is imminently in danger. Your proposal would block people with a legitimate need for a firearm in an attempt to stop people who just want to harm someone. Are you OK with that?

They always have the option of going to Arizona and getting one the same day.

So why can't everyone have that freedom? Why should only people from Arizona have that freedom?

"Why inconvenience people?" boy, you are a hoot!

Doesn't sound like a very liberal mindset to me.

Why bring up a law that would have Absolutely zero effect on this tragedy? The guy was a felon that means it was a crime for him to merely posses a firearm. The legal purchase of a new one is completely out of the question.

If you are going to join a thread, you might want to follow it from the beginning.

So in which post prior to #24 were waiting periods mentioned?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117285357#post6

It's the only way we'll be safe.

How would taking my guns away help anything? It was already illegal for him to have a gun.

...did you get the idea that removing firearms from private hands was supposed to "help" anything?

Twice the capacity of a normal derringer...

I always wanted of these, but heard their firing pin mechanism was prone to breaking.

Sad to hear about these deaths.

A Sharps & Hawkins 4 barrel derringer from the 1860's. 22 rimfire




Remington 4 barrel derringer 32 rimfire

I've shot it a few times over the years. Nifty little (heavy) pistol.

Its still a nifty derringer.