Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#502
#502
GoDucks349 said:
I agree its not perfect, but some are and it could help. I don't pretend to have all the answers, it's just that we have to start someplace with something that will help.
Click to expand...

Doing something for the sake of doing something got us the Patriot Act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#503
#503
I see the point about eliminating certain weapons. Would seem to solve the problem but what is the reality? The guy could have used a couple of semi-auto pistols just as effectively. Even with multiple revolvers he could do a lot of damage. Just saying ban the weapon, problem solved is very naive. The problem that must be solved is why an 18 year old kid, or anyone else, wants to become a mass murderer? What is different now compared to 20 years ago? I had access to weapons during high school, even kept my shotgun on a gun rack in my pickup that I drove to school. Even on the darkest day the thought of shooting someone never occurred to me. We need to get a clear understanding of what is going through the minds of these people and get the root problem corrected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#504
#504
lawgator1 said:
In this situation, yes, a 19 year old with a history of behavioral issues should not be allowed to purchase a gun, much less this type of gun. Certainly, we can all agree on that.

If we start from that premise, the issue is how do we get there? Now, this morning it is for example being reported that the kid may have posted a comment on a youtube video and this was reported to the FBI. We don't yet know when he bought the gun in relation to that, but it mayt be that he already had it.

In that event, the FBI should be able to immediately look him up and go to him and investigate. If he had not already bought the gun, they should have placed him on a list and he should not have been allowed to buy a gun.

No solution is perfect. For example the Vegas shooter apparently had no outwardly known mental health issues, so he would not get on a list.

But the mere fact that we cannot be sure to stop them all is no excuse not to try to stop some.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything here that shouldn't already be the case under existing law.
 
#505
#505
lawgator1 said:
In this situation, yes, a 19 year old with a history of behavioral issues should not be allowed to purchase a gun, much less this type of gun. Certainly, we can all agree on that.

If we start from that premise, the issue is how do we get there? Now, this morning it is for example being reported that the kid may have posted a comment on a youtube video and this was reported to the FBI. We don't yet know when he bought the gun in relation to that, but it mayt be that he already had it.

In that event, the FBI should be able to immediately look him up and go to him and investigate. If he had not already bought the gun, they should have placed him on a list and he should not have been allowed to buy a gun.

No solution is perfect. For example the Vegas shooter apparently had no outwardly known mental health issues, so he would not get on a list.

But the mere fact that we cannot be sure to stop them all is no excuse not to try to stop some.
Click to expand...

See Mick? This is how you have a reasonable conversation. (and I can't believe I just used LG as an example)

Anyway...

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree the warning signs were there, especially if the FBI knew about it in advance. However, I can't put the entire blame on the FBI as they often would (and should) pass on such things to local law enforcement to follow up on. Whether this happens remains to be seen, but certainly an avenue to be investigated as to who dropped the ball.

I agree the mental health aspect is and should be forefront of any debate. However, having said that to say this, it is a very subjective field that is open to a lot of interpretation. For example, PTSD was listed as a potential cause to remove the ownership of firearms. In some cases, extreme cases maybe, it's probably a wise choice. But I've suffered from it before and I don't believe I ever needed that right revoked even for a brief period of time. Furthermore, when such rights are even temporarily revoked, what kind of reinstatement procedures would there be if applicable? It's easy to say "take his or her guns because of mental issues" but not so easy (and often omitted) to explain how to reinstate that right. And what kind of court would be used (due process) to remove/reinstate that right? And not even getting into the HIPAA issue, but that would be a big hurdle as well.

Questions that often will NOT come up in the debate. With a good reason because once removed, it's easier to ignore the problem if your ultimate goal is total gun control.

It's not easy to put specific criteria on the mentally ill, though in this case (hindsight) this was a clear cut example of when it should have been.
 
#506
#506
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Because people like you are walking around breathing air someone else could be breathing.
Click to expand...

You seem to actually fit the psychological profile of a would be shooter. Delusional, angry, paranoid, self loathing, gun loving, and bitter. It may become necessary to share your data with the authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#507
#507
luthervol said:
You seem to actually fit the psychological profile of a would be shooter. Delusional, angry, paranoid, self loathing, gun loving, and bitter. It may become necessary to share your data with the authorities.
Click to expand...

Delusional, angry, paranoid, self loathing and bitter describes about 90% of this forum.

Gun loving describes the other 10%.

You've got a lot of reporting to do, young man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#508
#508
ClearwaterVol said:
My point is that the sheer amount and availability of guns in this country is one part of the problem. Issues like this are seldom as simple as 1+1=2. Lots of variables.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The problem is not volume, it’s the will to commit heinous acts that result in the loss of life. Guns are merely a means, just as vehicles, bombs, etc. are.

If you want to honestly solve the problem, start at the root, not the branches.
 
#512
#512
luthervol said:
My question is this....

What is the most deadly and destructive weapon that this guy should have been able to easily and legally purchase? I'm curious what the answers will be.
Click to expand...

I posted this earlier and never saw any responses. That can be interpreted a couple of ways.
 
#514
#514
luthervol said:
I posted this earlier and never saw any responses. That can be interpreted a couple of ways.
Click to expand...

Easy.

Fast burning gun powder, whole bunch of 1 inch screws/nails, glue, 12 ounce coffee cans.

Fuse, toss into a crowded hallway during class breaks, done.
 
#517
#517
Grand Vol said:
Try to be a big tough guy because you cannot understand what I'm asking all you want.

FACT: These "weapons of war" have been around for about 50 years.

FACT: The cornerstone of DNC policy is gun control

FACT: School shooting have been on the rise since 1999

QUESTION: Why weren't school shootings happening more frequently in the 30 years before the 94 AWB?
Click to expand...
They aren't going to answer this question any more than they answer mine about why is diversity 'better'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#518
#518
GoDucks349 said:
I could suggest that the sale of semi automatic weapons and rifle to Caucasians in southern states be band. But we know that would cause a revolution in less than 24 hours...

I do think some things can be done. First, is to acknowledge the source of the problem. Second, is to require that these weapons be kept in a controlled environment such as a secured weapons storage facility. Anyone wanting to check out a weapon would have to submit a request 3 days in advance along with were they were going to use the weapon and for what purpose.
Ex: hunting deer in authorized zone 2, etc or at rifle range xyz, etc. This does not take guns away, it just limits impulsive use. These are not great guns for home protection so that argument is BS.

That's just a couple thoughts.
Click to expand...

Oh dear lord
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#519
#519
Grand Vol said:
Easy.

Fast burning gun powder, whole bunch of 1 inch screws/nails, glue, 12 ounce coffee cans.

Fuse, toss into a crowded hallway during class breaks, done.
Click to expand...

Then we're left to wonder why he (or others) did not take this route. What makes something the weapon of choice?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#521
#521
Grand Vol said:
Easy.

Fast burning gun powder, whole bunch of 1 inch screws/nails, glue, 12 ounce coffee cans.

Fuse, toss into a crowded hallway during class breaks, done.
Click to expand...

Too much effort, and no guarantee of mass fatalities if you do that (bomb might not go off, etc.). These people want to kill as many as possible. That would seriously injure but probably not kill large numbers of people (like the Boston Marathon bombing).

I understand the argument (there are many ways nutjobs can hurt people besides guns), but a gun, assuming you have access to it, is by far the easiest. I'm not a gun control guy and even I'll admit that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#523
#523
05_never_again said:
Too much effort, and no guarantee of mass fatalities if you do that (bomb might not go off, etc.). These people want to kill as many as possible. That would seriously injure but probably not kill large numbers of people (like the Boston Marathon bombing).

I understand the argument (there are many ways nutjobs can hurt people besides guns), but a gun, assuming you have access to it, is by far the easiest. I'm not a gun control guy and even I'll admit that.
Click to expand...

There were several technical problems with Boston. It could have been far worse.
 
#524
#524
lawgator1 said:
In this situation, yes, a 19 year old with a history of behavioral issues should not be allowed to purchase a gun, much less this type of gun. Certainly, we can all agree on that.

If we start from that premise, the issue is how do we get there? Now, this morning it is for example being reported that the kid may have posted a comment on a youtube video and this was reported to the FBI. We don't yet know when he bought the gun in relation to that, but it mayt be that he already had it.

In that event, the FBI should be able to immediately look him up and go to him and investigate. If he had not already bought the gun, they should have placed him on a list and he should not have been allowed to buy a gun.

No solution is perfect. For example the Vegas shooter apparently had no outwardly known mental health issues, so he would not get on a list.

But the mere fact that we cannot be sure to stop them all is no excuse not to try to stop some.
Click to expand...
So you freely admit that these 'solutions' will not stop this kind of thing.


Headway
 
#525
#525
lawgator1 said:
In this situation, yes, a 19 year old with a history of behavioral issues should not be allowed to purchase a gun, much less this type of gun. Certainly, we can all agree on that.

If we start from that premise, the issue is how do we get there? Now, this morning it is for example being reported that the kid may have posted a comment on a youtube video and this was reported to the FBI. We don't yet know when he bought the gun in relation to that, but it mayt be that he already had it.

In that event, the FBI should be able to immediately look him up and go to him and investigate. If he had not already bought the gun, they should have placed him on a list and he should not have been allowed to buy a gun.

No solution is perfect. For example the Vegas shooter apparently had no outwardly known mental health issues, so he would not get on a list.

But the mere fact that we cannot be sure to stop them all is no excuse not to try to stop some.
Click to expand...

do we know what the comment was or the video? I have seen reports about it, but nothing specific.

What I am wondering is how broad of a brush will be wide/narrow enough to get the FBI to look into?

I am going to get investigated every time I "like" a video teaching gun safety? Do I get investigated for liking a video that the majority doesn't agree with? Do I get investigated for commenting negatively on a video about the current president or something that talks about the US in general?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top