M
member 3289
Guest
the idea of what not being ok, mass murder?
Almost every single school shooter made threats that are reasonable to take away their access to firearms
Adam Lanza Threatened Sandy Hook Killings Years Earlier, Records Show
In one entry dated Dec. 26, 2012, 12 days after the shooting, a man said he had been privy to a conversation in which Mr. Lanza said he had an assault weapon and was planning to kill children at Sandy Hook Elementary School and his mother.
The man, whose name was redacted, was so troubled by this information that he reported it to the Newtown Police Department in 2008, according to the document, which was among about 1,500 pages released by the agencyon Tuesday. But he said the police told him that “Lanza’s mother owned the guns and that there was nothing N.P.D. could do about it.”
The documents — large portions of which were redacted, including the names of numerous interviewees — include accounts by people who knew the gunman or his mother.
In one entry, a woman who had connected with Mr. Lanza online about two and half years before the massacre said she knew he had been obsessed with mass shootings
Lanza was working on a list, or spreadsheet, meticulously documenting the details of hundreds of spree killings and mass murders,” agents with the F.B.I. wrote of their interview with her. They said he had devoted all his time to researching these events.
Just another one of those video game kids...
The law should reflect we what we know in that situation. He is a high risk individual. He should not have access to guns.
The response to all that? "His mother owns guns that are in the house accessible to him, so derp".
The law should have allowed the forced securing, potentially even offsite, of those weapons immediately.
His mom was so out of touch I don't even know what to say about it. But I can't legislate parenting.
If he were a felon, his mother could go to jail for those weapons being in the house (unsecured,etc). But the response to
removing firearms from a house where an individual lives that is actively threatening killing and he himself should not have access to firearms is, "its his mothers guns, nothing we can do". Well we should change the law then.
You don't get the benefit of the doubt for your gun rights after you make a threat to shoot someone. Your gun ownership requires a higher standard and the onus should flip after such a threat is made.
"It was just a joke!" - Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The main problem with any kind of gun control is where does it end? Too much money on both sides for any law thats passed to be the end of it. If you give a inch now thats one less inch you have to give later.
Of course, but ever since DC v Keller essentially said, "it's impossible to ban guns", gun bans are off the table.
If the left would just stfu about banning guns for a little I think others would come to the table.
I get that thinking when the threat of gun bans exist.
But I view it more like a tactical preemptive move to undercut the naysayers.
One day, the stars are going to align in congress and the executive. And responsible gun owners are going to pay the price.
We should be making large shows of support for funding to penalize heavily existing gun laws (now just saying to enforce if we aren't funding that enforcement) and coming to the table on something easy that doesn't really harm us. I'm not sure I even have a great reason not to phase in 100% NICS transfers if I'm on a law and order kick. Surely the technology now could just setup a laptop at gun shows making that a non issue. And other private transfers simply have to meet at an FFL.
The lead for fixing the NICS database, investigating felons trying to buy guns, etc. has to come from the right. And its not enough to say it. This stuff costs cash and man power to go after them.
Its hard to have open dialogue when one side feels the need to misrepresent the weapon used to institute a feeling of fear just by mentioning the name.
I do agree with you in theory, it's just the putting it into practice part that seems tricky to me.
For example, from the article you just posted:
It is unclear what officials could have done to stop the attack at the point they were alerted to Mr. Lanza. All firearms in the Lanza home had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza, whom Mr. Lanza shot and killed in her bed the morning of Dec. 14 before going to the school and fatally shooting 20 children and six staff members.
Just using the Lanza example, where they couldn't take away his guns because technically he didn't own any guns - what do you do? Take away any guns in the family? Hardly seems fair.
Yes.
If a husband is a felon, it's illegal for that wife to have a gun accessible in the house. Why is this different? The onus to keep a firearm in a house but not allow the felon easy access to it is huge. This should be the same.
Solutions involve a high level of firearm security (gun safe with combo and key, separate ammo, etc.) or just straight up seizing the weapons until such proof of LEGAL and SAFE firearm storage is provided.
Don't do that with a felon? You don't get guns OR you might even go to jail. We do that preemptively. Here we do it after the fact?
The cops could have easily made a welfare call to the mother for both the ethical/safety reasons as well as the legal -- "If he gets his hands on those guns, you are responsible and may go to jail.".
She was bizarre and out of touch. The cops didn't even contact her.
The solution is easy and exists for felons (ie people that can't have guns). This should be the same and an aggressive shift in mentality needs to be had culturally. That includes law enforcement that are apparently not clear how to even respond here.
The provincial governments here each have their own "chief firearms office". They wield the ability to do transfers at their leisure over gun owners. They can literally range from being done in hours to being months. No rhyme or reason and because they're unelected bureaucrats, no accountability.
That's similar to how our Class 3 weapons are managed.
You have to get the local police to sign off on your application.
Completely random. And since silencers are treated the same as automatic weapons you might as well kiss your application goodbye in many jurisdictions for no good reason.
There are some workarounds but, they are workarounds.
When you go to any licensed firearm dealer in the US, and background check is run instantaneously off the nics database.
When I purchase firearms from individuals or from a gun show, there is no check. A preponderance of weapons are probably not purchased that way.
But 100% background check coverage is in line with putting money in action where our mouth is.
I'm also not particularly against 3 day waiting periods. It's annoying but it prevents suicide and occasionally prevents domestic murder
We could exempt gun shows from the 3-day waiting period rule. The transient nature of such exchanges already goes towards the goal as limiting impulsivity murders and suicide. There simply isn't a gun show their most of the time.
Bump fire stocks and crank fire trigger mechanisms clearly go against the intent of automatic fire rules. There's really no reason for us to die on that sword has gun owners. I'd be happy to dump them.
I agree with the bulk of your post, but limiting firearms doesn't really prevent suicides. Here are our suicide rates; I'd be surprised if you can guess at when we enacted our gun laws based on the graph.
Well it's different because a felon has been brought up on charges and convicted in a court of law, whereas in this case you're asking the cops/government to make a guess as to whether or not a person is dangerous based on an internet post. If the person made a specific threat ("I hate Bob Joeblow from work and I'm going to shoot him", etc) I think there'd be some cause to do that, but who do we trust to decipher what is real, a joke, shit talk, figure of speech, etc?
If I see a shitty movie and post "agh that director should be shot", do the feds show up and take my guns? And what about a threat that doesn't involve guns? If I say "Joe Blow has been talking shit about me, he'll get what he deserves", does the fact that I own guns elevate that to a gun threat, when in actuality maybe I was talking about shunning the guy, or maybe punching him in the face when I saw him?
BTW if an outside party saw this discussion we are having and was told one party is Canadian and the other a Texan, which do you think they'd label the Texan?
1
1372
Guest
Well it's different because a felon has been brought up on charges and convicted in a court of law, whereas in this case you're asking the cops/government to make a guess as to whether or not a person is dangerous based on an internet post. If the person made a specific threat ("I hate Bob Joeblow from work and I'm going to shoot him", etc) I think there'd be some cause to do that, but who do we trust to decipher what is real, a joke, shit talk, figure of speech, etc?
If I see a shitty movie and post "agh that director should be shot", do the feds show up and take my guns? And what about a threat that doesn't involve guns? If I say "Joe Blow has been talking shit about me, he'll get what he deserves", does the fact that I own guns elevate that to a gun threat, when in actuality maybe I was talking about shunning the guy, or maybe punching him in the face when I saw him?
BTW if an outside party saw this discussion we are having and was told one party is Canadian and the other a Texan, which do you think they'd label the Texan?
I dunno, he's sounding like a real limp wristed liberal, I don't know if he can handle a gun like that.
I dunno, he's sounding like a real limp wristed liberal, I don't know if he can handle a gun like that.
Lmao with the slight smile
When you have two separate public posts months apart saying this and a person known to you calls the FBI saying they think you are going to shoot up a school?
That sounds like a joke to you?
Once more in the, "how could we have ever known this was going to happen?" Files
Nikolas Cruz was investigated after cutting himself on Snapchat, state report shows
Nikolas Cruz was investigated after cutting himself on Snapchat, state report shows
Mental instability.