How does someone who shot gun at people twice, hears voices...

[Lonestar_logic]

deny him and its racial profiling. and the bottom line is when we identify someone as having issues there is no plan in place to deal with them. which is why background cecks will never work

The guy walked into a gunshop, passed a background check, and came out with weapons, legally.

This is why mental health reporting needs to be expanded

You're ignoring the fact that he shot at someone's tires, and shot at a woman through his ceiling/her floor for makiing too much noise.

Neither of those charges resulted in a conviction.

In this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Murder plots, false flags, 5 guys shooting up the Navy Yard. Yeah, we know who is hearing voices.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]
It's on record that he shot at his neighbor, are you denying this?


Also, explain how a gun found it's way into a gun free zone?

 

[g5000]

Murder plots, false flags, 5 guys shooting up the Navy Yard. Yeah, we know who is hearing voices.

It's on record that he shot at his neighbor, are yo denying this?

Yup. You are full of shit.

He shot at a tire. And he shot his ceiling.

If you want to see what actually shooting AT someone looks like, what happened at the Navy Yard should suffice.

Take your meds.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

From what I understand, Alexis was never charged for either of the two prior shootings. So he would not have a criminal record for them, much less a mental health one.

Your information is wrong. He was charged and arrested for discharging a weapon into a neighbor's house.

A charge isn't a conviction.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Murder plots, false flags, 5 guys shooting up the Navy Yard. Yeah, we know who is hearing voices.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]
It's on record that he shot at his neighbor, are you denying this?


Also, explain how a gun found it's way into a gun free zone?

Wrong!

He shot through to floor of an apartment.

No evidence exists that he tried shooting the neighbor.

A gun free zone isn't much different than a speeding zone. It doesn't stop shit.

 

[g5000]

From what I understand, Alexis was never charged for either of the two prior shootings. So he would not have a criminal record for them, much less a mental health one.

Your information is wrong. He was charged and arrested for discharging a weapon into a neighbor's house.

Arrested is not "charged".

The local district attorney subsequently declined to file charges against Alexis.

Aaron Alexis, Suspect In Washington Navy Yard Shooting, Was Once Arrested For Shooting Bullet Into Neighbor's Home | The Smoking Gun

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Murder plots, false flags, 5 guys shooting up the Navy Yard. Yeah, we know who is hearing voices.

It's on record that he shot at his neighbor, are yo denying this?

Yup. You are full of shit.

He shot at a tire. And he shot his ceiling.

If you want to see what actually shooting AT someone looks like, what happened at the Navy Yard should suffice.

Take your meds.

He shot at his ceiling with his neighbor above.

He also DESTROYED a tire with a gun.

Do you realize that your confirming that he was DANGEROUS?

Are you saying it's ok to shoot tires? Take your meds!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The level of ignorance on this board is outstanding.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Murder plots, false flags, 5 guys shooting up the Navy Yard. Yeah, we know who is hearing voices.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]
It's on record that he shot at his neighbor, are you denying this?


Also, explain how a gun found it's way into a gun free zone?

Wrong!

He shot through to floor of an apartment.

No evidence exists that he tried shooting the neighbor.

A gun free zone isn't much different than a speeding zone. It doesn't stop shit.

And shooting the tire?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-dc-navy-yard-shooter-aaron-alexis-navy/story?id=20273287

 

[g5000]

Alexis was charged for shooting the guy's tires, though.

Alexis, who had a Washington State concealed pistol license, was charged with illegal discharge of a firearm and property damage. The disposition of those counts remains unclear.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's on record that he shot at his neighbor, are yo denying this?

Yup. You are full of shit.

He shot at a tire. And he shot his ceiling.

If you want to see what actually shooting AT someone looks like, what happened at the Navy Yard should suffice.

Take your meds.

He shot at his ceiling with his neighbor above.

He also DESTROYED a tire with a gun.

Do you realize that your confirming that he was DANGEROUS?

Are you saying it's ok to shoot tires? Take your meds!

No one is saying he wasn't dangerous or that it's ok to shoot tires out. What is being said is that none of those events led to a conviction which would show up on a background check.



Do try to keep up.

 

[g5000]

Alexis joined the Navy in 2007, so the 2004 charge for shooting the tires would have turned up. The recruiter obviously got him a waiver so he could join the Navy.

 

[Black_Label]

deny him and its racial profiling. and the bottom line is when we identify someone as having issues there is no plan in place to deal with them. which is why background cecks will never work

The guy walked into a gunshop, passed a background check, and came out with weapons, legally.

This is why mental health reporting needs to be expanded

Not mental health reporting, mental health adjudication. A judge has to be involved when someone's rights are taken away, not some governmental burecrat who, at the behest of his gun grabbing masters, can say anyone is "crazy" and deny them a firearm.

That's the problem, you have to be deemed mentally incompetent by a judge and sent to a mental ward to not be able to obtain a gun, and even then, few mental wards even report back to the ATF to register these people.

If someone is found to be severely mentally ill, such as the shooter, it should be the mental health professional's job to report it to the ATF.

 

[Jos]

Negligent discharge of a firearm

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Alexis joined the Navy in 2007, so the 2004 charge for shooting the tires would have turned up. The recruiter obviously got him a waiver so he could join the Navy.

You don't know if the charges were later dropped or they pled out on a lesser offense.

Don't assume facts that are not in evidence.

He was charged, no one knows if he was convicted or exonerated of those charges.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Alexis was charged for shooting the guy's tires, though.

Alexis, who had a Washington State concealed pistol license, was charged with illegal discharge of a firearm and property damage. The disposition of those counts remains unclear.

And he was still allowed to obtain a firearm?

USA TODAY

Seattle police released details late Monday of another shooting incident from 2004 in which Alexis shot the rear tires of a vehicle owned by a construction worker doing work in his neighborhood. Alexis told police he had an anger-fueled "blackout" but added that he felt he had been "mocked" by the workers and "disrespected" by the workers.

Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooting suspect: Who is he?

You got to be fucking kidding.

 

[martybegan]

The guy walked into a gunshop, passed a background check, and came out with weapons, legally.

This is why mental health reporting needs to be expanded

Not mental health reporting, mental health adjudication. A judge has to be involved when someone's rights are taken away, not some governmental burecrat who, at the behest of his gun grabbing masters, can say anyone is "crazy" and deny them a firearm.

That's the problem, you have to be deemed mentally incompetent by a judge and sent to a mental ward to not be able to obtain a gun, and even then, few mental wards even report back to the ATF to register these people.

If someone is found to be severely mentally ill, such as the shooter, it should be the mental health professional's job to report it to the ATF.

Taking away a right requires a judge, and a determination from said judge. Whats to prevent the ATF from defining down the definition of "severely mentally ill"?

Burecrats do not have the power to remove a right from a person, only a court can, and only after the person in question has faced said court.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The guy walked into a gunshop, passed a background check, and came out with weapons, legally.

This is why mental health reporting needs to be expanded

Not mental health reporting, mental health adjudication. A judge has to be involved when someone's rights are taken away, not some governmental burecrat who, at the behest of his gun grabbing masters, can say anyone is "crazy" and deny them a firearm.

That's the problem, you have to be deemed mentally incompetent by a judge and sent to a mental ward to not be able to obtain a gun, and even then, few mental wards even report back to the ATF to register these people.

If someone is found to be severely mentally ill, such as the shooter, it should be the mental health professional's job to report it to the ATF.

I agree with this, so long as the Government doesn't determine who is or isn't mentally ill by any political standards.

 

[Black_Label]

Not mental health reporting, mental health adjudication. A judge has to be involved when someone's rights are taken away, not some governmental burecrat who, at the behest of his gun grabbing masters, can say anyone is "crazy" and deny them a firearm.

That's the problem, you have to be deemed mentally incompetent by a judge and sent to a mental ward to not be able to obtain a gun, and even then, few mental wards even report back to the ATF to register these people.

If someone is found to be severely mentally ill, such as the shooter, it should be the mental health professional's job to report it to the ATF.

Taking away a right requires a judge, and a determination from said judge. Whats to prevent the ATF from defining down the definition of "severely mentally ill"?

Burecrats do not have the power to remove a right from a person, only a court can, and only after the person in question has faced said court.

If there was a list of deemed mental conditions on a list that would be reported, Giffords, colorado, virgina tech, newtown and now DC never would have happened.

All had known severe mental illness

All obtained guns legally.

 

[martybegan]

That's the problem, you have to be deemed mentally incompetent by a judge and sent to a mental ward to not be able to obtain a gun, and even then, few mental wards even report back to the ATF to register these people.

If someone is found to be severely mentally ill, such as the shooter, it should be the mental health professional's job to report it to the ATF.

Taking away a right requires a judge, and a determination from said judge. Whats to prevent the ATF from defining down the definition of "severely mentally ill"?

Burecrats do not have the power to remove a right from a person, only a court can, and only after the person in question has faced said court.

If there was a list of deemed mental conditions on a list that would be reported, Giffords, colorado, virgina tech, newtown and now DC never would have happened.

All had known severe mental illness

All obtained guns legally.

Then the authorities should have begun proceedings to have them declared mentally unfit by a judge. A failure on the part of the state to control citizens with mental issues does not result in me losing my rights to some ATF jackwad who doesnt like weapons in the hands of non-government agents, or some NYPD asshole who only thinks cops should have firearms.

Of course, they could have then just gotten the weapons illegally, like alot of criminals do.