Alison Parker’s Father: ‘We’ve Got to Do Something About Crazy People Getting Guns’
Source: mediaite
Andy Parker appeared tonight on Fox News, alongside Chris Hurst, the man who Parker had planned to marry, to speak with Megyn Kelly about what kind of person she was.
But at one point, Parker wanted to make it clear that he has some strong views about actually doing something, telling Kelly, “We’ve got to do something about crazy people getting guns.”
He lamented how in a week from now, the news will completely move on and “everybody’s gonna forget” this shooting. But Parker said he spoke with Governor Terry McAuliffe, a gun control advocate, and he told McAuliffe about “shaming legislators into doing something about closing loopholes and background checks.”
Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/alison-parkers-father-weve-got-to-do-something-about-crazy-people-getting-guns/
Video (FOX) at the link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LonePirate
(13,424 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 06:00 AM - Edit history (1)
The last I knew, gun background checks did not involve on the spot psych evals. Did the shooter have a history that would have prevented his purchase?
GusBob
(7,286 posts)He was advised by his former employer to seek medical help for his anger issues
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)GusBob
(7,286 posts)I think that's what the father is advocating.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)There should be a way to report people with anger issues to the gun registry. And they should have to be able to pass an exam for mental stability to be able to get a gun.
branford
(4,462 posts)If you believe someone is a danger to themselves or others, report your concerns to the police. If the relevant authorities believe your concerns are justified, they can go to court, bearing a very high burden of proof, to involuntarily commit the individual (or seek more appropriate evaluations for such commitment). Any decision would be subject to multiple appeals. No person would be deprived of such rights without such constitutionally mandated due process and other protections.
However, I cannot imagine any system wherein liberals would encourage citizens to monitor and report on each other for the purposes of placing them on a government list where they would automatically lose constitutional rights, and could only regain such rights by proving to the government that they are fit to exercise their rights. It's truly frightening how the subject of firearms often makes progressives behave like conservative's worst caricatures of left-wing tyrants.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The person has to be committed or jailed before any red flags are raised.
Make getting a gun as hard as getting a classified position in the government. There, you've just weeded out 99% of unstable from being able to get a gun.
Here's how you implement it: set up a registry that is shall issue from the start. After you have enough statistical data, and it shows, irrevocably (and it will), that mentally unstable people go off and kill people at a higher rate, then make it "no issue until exam, anger management classes, etc." Simple.
If you do it that way no court in the land will sit back and say mentally unstable people have a right to have a gun.
These mass shootings have one thing in common: everyone who does it has some serious mental issues where red flags were shown for months before.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)help a mentally ill person UNLESS he/she is deemed a threat to others or him/herself.
There was a special on 60 MINUTES a few months ago that profiled several mothers whose children had severe mental issues, and they could not get anyone to help them .
For example, there was a mother whose daughter was hospitalized, and she told her mother that she "saw blood running down the walls", yet they discharged her after 3 days because she was NOT deemed to be a threat to herself or others.
Remember Nancy Lanza? She pleaded for help for years. She once told a baby-sitter "don't take your eyes off him [Adam] for one second, not even to go to the bathroom".. Adam was only 9 yrs at that time
I'm glad to see that there is a bipartisan effort in Congress to REFORM our mental health system/laws.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,196 posts)including automatic assault weapons, with Adam living with her. She even took him to gun ranges and taught him how to use them.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Simply
This asshole harassed and threatened coworkers to the point they were afraid
His bosses recognized the guy had mental issues. They mandated health evaluation.
The guy ended up getting fired. Police had to come to escort him from the worksite
He gets a gun and shoots 2 of his ex coworkers
It's not like this has never happened before. There has to be a way to prevent it
branford
(4,462 posts)If the threats and harassment were as bad as now portrayed after the fact, the failings seem to fall on the television station for not taking more affirmative steps with the police and/or the police for not seeking a mental health evaluation (I haven't heard what, if anything, the murderer's family knew). However, even with an evaluation, the perpetrator might not have been diagnosed a danger to himself or others at that time, no less with sufficient evidence to satisfy a court. Simply, untold thousands of difficult, angry employees are fired every day who never resort to violence.
Another problem is that people seem to use nebulous terminology. How does one define "mental issues" or "mentally unstable?" Remember that under the First Amendment, you cannot deny people constitutional rights (or much else) based on the content of their ideas or speech, and being a angry belligerent ass is perfectly legal in the USA, so long as the person is not proven to be an actual serious physical threat to themselves or others. There's a reason why the standards for commitment and related matters are so high.
Liberals also fought tooth and nail to prevent the criminalization and forced institutionalization of the mentally ill, and I have no intention of reversing hard fought gains because of firearm fears. In fact, those suffering from mental illness are not generally dangerous and are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than offenders.
As a mater both of constitutional law and electoral support, the rare incidence of such tragic events (and despite the horror, events like yesterday are still very rare in relation to the number of gun owners and number of guns in the USA) will not support draconian restrictions on firearm ownership against tens of millions of peaceful and law-abiding Americans.
I most certainly sympathize with the desire to prevent such horrible event in the future, and would welcome fresh ideas, but the need to "do something" will not overcome established constitutional protections (well apart from the 2A itself). We live in a free and open society, and sometime it's not possible to prevent all tragedies.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Unless the psych eval is related to a crime the person committed, it will not show up.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)As in an application process.
Which side of sanity are you on?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)psych eval didn't catch a few of those, it seems...
beevul
(12,194 posts)
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)that cause people to go crazy. There is no security for people who aren't in the upper income percentages. It also doesn't help that the media hypes every fear that anybody has and makes it just that much worse. Guns are teddy bears for people who feel like they don't have any control over their lives, and since a good percentage of them are already insane with worry, it's not going to lead to good things.
potone
(1,701 posts)That is not to say that we don't need better gun control, because obviously we do, but we live in a society that has shredded its social safety network over the years and demonized the poor and unemployed, while at the same time devaluing workers and praising the wealthy. It is not surprising in this environment that a seriously stressed person could finally snap.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)sometimes it is over years but the human mind while resilient can break. There is really no safe gun owner and that includes our law enforcement and military. The best we can do is limit handguns and semi-automatics as much as possible (including most law enforcement) like they do in civil countries.
If you need a gun for hunting or protection, use an old fashioned single fire rifle. That should cover the Second Amendment and offer citizens a lot more protection from gun owners at the same time. I do believe that rifles were the weapons our forefathers had in mind when they created the Second Amendment anyway.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...when they created the First Amendment anyway."
In your opinion, does the First Amendment apply to 'speech' posted on the Internet?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)in light of technology. Do people have the right to bully people over the internet? Have lives ruined, due to a simple transgression because of the ability of the internet to keep information forever and post it nationwide?
Actually, I think this topic is currently being discussed by candidates even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I take it you are referring to the Ashley Madison brouhaha? Libel and slander are still
libel and slander, and the AM management would be just as vulnerable to legal
action if someone had stolen those files physically and published them on paper
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)If something is the truth and you publish it, it's the truth. If you tell the world "christx30 hit an icy patch on a cold night and crashed his father's car into another vehicle" I might be angry that you exposed something embarrassing about me online, I'll sue you for lible. You'll being in insurance records and confront me with it. You'll ask me on the stand if it happened and I'll have to admit under oath it happened. The case against you would be dismissed.
If I were to say "Bill and Hillary Clinton are aliens from Planet X, and are here to steal the ocean", they could sue me. They just show that what I'm saying isn't true, and they'll get damages.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and I'm a little too old and creaky to relish being forced into going mano a mano
with someone insane and/or malevolent who might decide to take a violent dislike.
That said, kindly leave 'creative' interpretations of enumerated rights to the Republicans-
fucking with the Second Amendment just gives them top cover for going after the Fourteenth
(and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, et cetera...)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)of going 'mano a mano' with anyone. Nor, have I ever been deemed insane or malevolent and currently don't think myself to be so either. But even it I were to become so tomorrow, you need not worry since I do not own nor have any desire to purchase a gun. In fact, it appears that maybe I should be the one worried about the old and cranky that might already possess one.
Glad to know you at least think I am creative. Thank you for that.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And btw, you needn't be 'concerned' on my account- I own no guns...
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Welcome to Democracy.
Thanks for the rest of the info though, it will allow me to sleep at night. 
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...as is claimed here on DU
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)At least those of us that already feel it, know it. 
Welcome to the club.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I said you could keep your rifle. Maybe there are a lot more like me.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I really do understand the quandary here, as it seems, does Bernie. I have only come to terms with my 'solution' after years of debating it.
Plus, I am getting to old to not come to a decision - so there you have it. And. I think I like it.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)However, gun violence is a symptom of a bigger problem which should be addressed. Possibly what we're seeing are the first stages of what leads to pitchforks or a modern equivalent.
Baitball Blogger
(46,733 posts)Now, that's a term for our times.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Thank you for making it. 
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)He must be exhausted and drained--not enough time to even process what happened. Media should learn to leave people alone for at least 24 hours. Poor guy.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)They could prevent others.
Beta Male
(52 posts)As usual. 
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)any legislative action on gun violence, nothing will.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)his old workmates. That might spark some latent, vestigial, empathy.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)As watching the video from the shooters view, sent chills down the spine. However, sadly....it appears some in America think this level of violence is right and should be viewed often.....which is downright, lowdown in the mud disgusting --- if one can say. 
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)Than see restrictions on their gun ownership. The violence continues to escalate because their answer is to get more guns.
Baffling.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)We live in a mad society that allows this, where anyone who even raises the question is shouted down as anti-2nd amendment.
People assume that it is this way everywhere. It isn't, but that doesn't compute with them.
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)This man said everything that I feel and think. He said he believes in the 2nd amendment but that we've got to bring some common sense back into this equation. He confronted the politicians on all levels and he condemned the NRA.
He specifically stated that he knew the NRA would frame the shooting to try to advance their agenda that "if only someone had been packing", and he assured them that either his daughter or the cameraman having a gun would NOT have made a difference.
He is heartbroken over the loss of his daughter and her friend, and he was speaking completely from his heart. I think he will be a formidable advocate for gun law revisions, and I wish him and his family as much peace and comfort as is possible.