Quote Originally Posted by calvarez View Post
You changed my words. I don't know if you did it intentionally, but it's something I see all the time in debate that kills the ability to be rational. I said he committed CRIMES. You then softened that to "issues." The issues should lead to further assessment. Not to depriving someone of their rights unless that further assessment, and due process, deem it to be legal. But the guy had ACTUALLY COMMITTED CRIMES and they didn't arrest him, or do anything at all about it.

I'm against depriving a person of their rights for having ISSUES.

I'm completely for depriving a person of their rights when they commit CRIMES.
I didn't change your words. Almost 100% of the time, a person will have "issues" before the crime is committed. I'm searching for the "actions" that should have been taken by the government, as well as "when" the actions should be taken.

If you're okay with taking action after the mass shootings, then you're okay with the status quo. And there's nothing wrong with that, except that the next generation of voters are not going accept it.

If you run an RCCA on these shootings, much like Trump will do when pressured into it, it's going to lead to some sort of action or intervention at the first sign of mental incompetency or anger issues. Everyone knows it's not the gun, it's the person. So we have to separate the two, or prevent possession in the first place. That is the issue.