On Feb 17, 1:44*pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:37?pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:21?pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
And the real question is with the current laws, how did this person
get a gun?

Maybe it had something to do with her not having been charged with or
convicted of a crime?

David

And why does that make a difference?

As I said, this is a prime example of background checks need to be
more extensive.

An example...

Years ago I used to have a neighbor who had severe anger management
problems...a real *******.

The guy liked to drink and loved guns.

I was the only neighbor that could deal with his behavior...and did
for many years...partly because I knew his parents/childhood had been
a major reason for his behavior.

One day he decided to go crazy mad ...on my driveway..and to this day
I have NO IDEA what set him off.

Finally I had to call the cops...in front of him.

At that point he decided it was best to retreat to his house.

At that point I told the 911 operator to hold off sending the cops.

A neighbor who witnessed this unfold still tells me to this day he
expected me to be shot dead by the end of that day.

Now I can tell you that person has NO BUSINESS owning a gun...but he
has many of them.

But there is no arrest or conviction on his record so he continues to
own and can buy guns.

while possibly true, you were able to read this person as being broken..

I don't do crimminal check on people I meet, but it's usually obvious in
seconds to minutes if a person is just bad. I have no problem telling if
somebody is shifty or not. Other people just don't get it.

If tomorrow I heard that one of his neighbors/family members had been
shot by this person, it would not surprise me at all.

The bottom line...there are many people who can pass a background
check and should not own a firearm.

The shooter from Alabama apparently is one of them.

I wonder if they were clearly and obviously broken to start with, and if
so, why were they hired in the first place.

A bunch of places interview new candidates by letting them meet potential
coworkers, so weed out any future clashes.

A person may be qualified on paper, but a complete jackass that nobody
wants to work with, and some employers realize these people are hard to
get rid of and it's easier to just not hire them in the first place.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your evaluation of your capabilities is overestimated.

not at all. People comment to me all the time on how I was right about
calling somebody no good or sketchy after meeting them once.

Many people who are "normal" *are not.

Only if you're really bad at judging character, and just assume everybody
is normal.

Why do you think they require drug testing instead of "eyeballing".

to be corporate, lazy and to shift work to somebody else?

Anyways, if people aren't on PCP and running an overhead crane, or driving
a school bus, I don't care what they do.

I'd be more worried about people on 50 prescription medications over some
somebody that smokes up on the weekend. There's also plenty of coke users
that live completely functional lives and don't smash and grab car
stereos or stupid stuff like that.

As for me, I'd pass any drug test, but will not take one. If they decide
to do testing at work, I'll get a new job where playing with my **** isn't
involved. Unless people see me snorting coke off my desk, or running the
forking through walls, it's nobody's business what I do.

What's next? alcohol tests, smoking tests?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes and yes.

It is becoming very common for drug, smoking and alcohol testing
before hiring.

Companies also check your credit rating and driving record.

Don't like it...tough ****.

Businesses don't care if you like it or not.

So be pro-business....

TMT