Today’s Shooting (an ongoing topic)

I never read this thread because the gun problems in the US feel hopeless and it’s so frustrating and infuriating I don’t want to think about it. I came yesterday because it’s finally happened up here. I expect Maine to react with new laws.
 
Herdfan said:
I'll admit this one hit at little bit harder. At least at first. Initial reports just listed him as a firearms instructor and one of my beliefs has always been that it is not the legal owners who are the problem.

As more comes out, he never should have been a firearms instructor, nor should have been allowed to have guns.

I am fine with restricting ownership with one caveat, Due Process. As long as someone gets a fair day in court, then I'm OK with there being restrictions on ownership.
Click to expand...

Many of the situations, though not all, are pretty tragic for the perpetrators if you can momentarily withhold judgment of their crimes and have some empathy for the circumstances that lead them to committing such heinous acts. To be clear, that does not excuse them from being responsible (in most cases with mental illness, their condition is only a mitigating factor). Even in the quite rare events they are truly insane to the level they are found unfit for trial, they may not be able to be held responsible for their actions criminally but they are responsible for consequences to ensure they cannot repeat such behavior. Working with mental ill patients has given me a much greater appreciation for the complexities of the human mind and how circumstances can lead an otherwise good person to do unthinkable things. And also how environmental factors like like poor upbringings can ruin the chances of a normal productive life and how severe trauma can ruin an otherwise wonderful life.
This situation is a bit atypical. Card is 40 years old. It is reported he started hearing voices. Typically psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia or Bipolar 1 usually develop by like age 25. It’s odd to me he could serve in the military without these conditions being presenting themselves and being known. Late onset Schizophrenia does exist but is less common and is more likely to occur in women. Psychotic depression often presents in the 20-40 year old range and often occurs after having previous depressive episodes. It tends to be pretty treatable BUT is often misdiagnosed. I believe he was treated at a VA hospital, who ai would expect would have been more familiar with psychotic depression.

Another possibility is that his psychosis was not caused by a mental health condition but rather a neurological problem, like a brain tumor or traumatic brain injury.

Another possibility could definitely be substance abuse- stimulants, psychedelics/hallucinogens, cannabis (if he is among the small but not insignificant percentage genetically susceptible to THC-induced psychosis), and potentially others. We literally just saw that off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot try to shut down the plane’s engines mid flight and apparently alluded to having used psychedelic mushrooms. Another tragic story of a sick man who destroyed his life. In any case drug use + underlying psychosis is a very, very dangerous combination.

Being a CT native and watching Sandy Hook unfold and living in downtown Boston during the Marathon Bombings + subsequent Manhunt, I know how these terrible events affect communities. To hear Maine residents be ordered to shelter inn place is pretty unfathomable. I know a number of people from Maine and the remarkable thing is everyone seems to know everyone up there or have one degree of separation. It’s remarkable now close knit a state can be. They have my deepest condolences.

I hope law enforcement finds Mr. Card before he can hurt anyone else, including himself. Given the distinct possibility he is incapable of discerning reality from fiction, I hope he can be captured rather than killed. That said, if he demonstrates any risk to others the police have every right to do what is necessary.

I have a feeling there is a decent chance he has already or will end up taking his own life by the time this is over.
 
Yoused said:
To the ammosexuals, taking away a man's guns due to mental issues is a dangerous practice to get into. Who gets to decide what constitutes а mental defect? Afore ya knows it, they'll start a-callin' a man crazy just onacuzza he has fifty guns.
Click to expand...

At this point the only thing they’ll say confirms mental illness is doing a mass shooting but that’s only because it deflects from the guns.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
At this point the only thing they’ll say confirms mental illness is doing a mass shooting but that’s only because it deflects from the guns.
Click to expand...

The problem is compounded by people who find a conspiracy in everything. "False-flag operations" are a favorite among the far-right, because its easy to throw out. Its predictable and stupid, but those are virtues in the cult, not defects.

Alex Jones was sued for millions for his comments about Sandy Hook, yet we have MTG in congress spreading the same type of lies and BS about Parkland and other events.

So yeah, almost as much as the guns is the misinformation.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
At this point the only thing they’ll say confirms mental illness is doing a mass shooting but that’s only because it deflects from the guns.
Click to expand...

I must say I’m not a fan of this argument. Depending on the circumstances and how our two partisan side feels about the perpetrator who has committed a mass killing (not just gun-involved killings), the issue is for one side is mental health if trying to distract from features that are detrimental to their party or ideology.

If a young white man shoots up a school, surely the left calls for gun control measures while the right says it’s too soon and we need to talk about mental health If a transgender person commits mass murder the right blame woke ideology, indoctrination, substandard security measure- meanwhile the left focuses on the victims primarily, mental health, bullying, a lack of tolerance for the LGBT community, etc. The left media totally loses interest in the perpetrator if they are a minority- I bet you can name and identify Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz. But how about the Uvalde shooter? But if it’s a white male they will provide extensive focus, especially if they can be tied to the right in any possible way. And how often is it a mass shooting occurs and the left immediately assumes a white guy, saying all sorts of racist things, only to have to walk it all back. Just as the right assumes every mass murderer outside of schools is an Islamic Terrorist.

An honestly, increasingly the discussion is less and less directed specifically at gun laws or mental health or whatever l specific interest. Both democrats and republicans use these tragedies to blame the other party and use it as an opportunity to win political points.
But when push comes to shove, the policies they create are overwhelmingly symbolic gestures than legitimate change. Most gun laws proposed by the left would have no effect on the events that occurred had they existed and/or are so easily circumvented their value is at best questionable. The right will decry the need for better mental health but even if actually they throw a few dollars towards it, it’s irrelevant given how bad our system is. Meanwhile meaningful policies like red flag laws- far from being a reliably implemented tool but a tool that can work if utilized- are refused by the right.

So frankly, I am tired of the political opportunism that is exists with every single tragedy like this. I’m starting to believe both sides at the very least subconsciously but in some cases consciously have no real intention of taking meaningful measures because it’s just too politically valuable. Keep in mind how narcissistic most politician are beneath their facade and some proportion is surely sociopathic. And when the left talks about banning guns, it only results in more gun sales and firing up Republican base. And now we’re at the point where some right wing politicians are relaxing gun laws in response to school shootings to virtue signal they oppose any reform.

The reality is that the lack of sensible regulations on guns is a serious problem- too many people have access to guns that shouldn’t be anywhere near them. Mental health is also a serious issue, not just in relation to mass killings but our youth have unprecedented levels of issues. And the resources allocated to mental health far from what it needs to be. We also have too many young people getting involved in criminal behavior that leads to a lifetime of problems- maybe not shooting up schools but involving themselves in deadly gang violence.

There is no “one” solution that can be pointed to. We need as many realistic methods to address this crisis and to be creative in ways to get them improved and implemented. At the moment, banning all guns is not one of the and we all know that. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon. Therefore drawing the redline at banning all guns is not helpful and if anything likely counterproductive to any change occurring.
 
AG_PhamD said:
There is no “one” solution that can be pointed to. We need as many realistic methods to address this crisis and to be creative in ways to get them improved and implemented.
Click to expand...

Bring back the assault rifle ban that lapsed in recent history. “Liberals can’t even define what an assault rifle is. LOL!”. I guess we’ll just pretend we didn’t already have a ban and that excuse wasn’t used. But fine, let’s define them then and get them off the streets.
 
Robert Card was found dead. Manhunt over.

This is going to be a case discussed for some time, as there isn’t much question he was in dire need of help beyond some appointments or a brief stay in an institution.

www.nbcnews.com

Lewiston shooting suspect found dead, law enforcement officials say: Live updates

Follow NBC News' coverage for live updates and developments about the shootings in Lewiston, Maine, that killed at least 18 people.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Bring back the assault rifle ban that lapsed in recent history. “Liberals can’t even define what an assault rifle is. LOL!”. I guess we’ll just pretend we didn’t already have a ban and that excuse wasn’t used. But fine, let’s define them then and get them off the streets.
Click to expand...

I’m not opposed to an assault weapons ban, but I’m not an outspoken advocate of either. I’m far from being well versed in what the research says on assault rifles and mass shootings- but I know the results are contradictory- not surprising considering the statics can be easily manipulated based on inclusion exclusion criteria- especially when there are no universally accepted definition of mass shooting. I think there are generational/cultural factors that cannot necessarily be accounted for either. Mass shootings have evidently become such a romanticized fantasy for disturbed and angry young men (in particular) looking to take the world down with them. And there’s definitely pattern of the same style of gun popping up in nearly every high profile masa shooting.

My thought considering his practically is that if the desire exists in person to perpetrate such an attack, they will use the next best tool, presumably a pistol. So I wouldn’t assume an AR ban to influence the numbers significantly from what they would have been otherwise. There might very well be some reduction in the number of people killed due to reduced “efficiency” (not to sound so clinical on such a morbid topic).

It’s a complex problem and I don’t believe there is any one solution, let a simple one. If every gun with w legal history were turned in with a gun ban, there would still be an unimaginable amount of guns in this country. Given our gun culture here you can bet black market arms sales would become a massive industry with likely many previously law abiding citizens getting involved.

I’ve never considered this but those who want to legalize drugs because banning them hasn’t worked are often people who want to ban guns. Kinda ironic but I digress. I don’t subscribe to binary ideas on any of these matters.

Back to guns, i believe we need a multifaceted approach that provides protection to society but also strives to maintain our freedoms. The irony, as I often say is, the more the “not another inch” people fail to inch.. or in some cases inch backwards into less protections; the more heinous atrocities occur, the more people support outright bans or other severe restrictions.

First we need high quality data and for it be analyzed objectively and without aiming to promote an agenda. That data should then inform laws- like we already have really good evidence those <24 (really men specifically) are most likely to be involved with gun-related violence. Maybe raise the age, at least for pistols and ARs, to 24? Grandfather in existing owners under 24 so as not to deprive a right they already had. After X years assesses the data to see if the law worked (based on predetermined metrics). If yes, keep the law on the books. If not, remove it. Or extend it and reassess again when you have more data

Testing out laws like this that must meet agreed upon outcomes and be supported by evidence makes it a lot harder to argue in absolutes the merits of a law when by design the law must prove itself. And laws that serve no meaningful benefit can get tossed. Maybe politicians would be more likely to cooperate and do more than virtue signal if their policy lwould be formally reviewed for their outcomes.
 

How often Have we seen this? but its always the shooter has more rights then the dead of course.​

Police Were Warned Last Month About Maine Shooter’s Threats: 'There Were Warning Signs'​

www.huffpost.com

Police Were Warned Last Month About Maine Shooter’s Threats: 'There Were Warning Signs'

Police across Maine were alerted just last month about “veiled threats” by the man who authorities say would go on to carry out the worst mass shooting in the state’s history.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
AG_PhamD said:
I’m not opposed to an assault weapons ban, but I’m not an outspoken advocate of either. I’m far from being well versed in what the research says on assault rifles and mass shootings- but I know the results are contradictory- not surprising considering the statics can be easily manipulated based on inclusion exclusion criteria- especially when there are no universally accepted definition of mass shooting. I think there are generational/cultural factors that cannot necessarily be accounted for either. Mass shootings have evidently become such a romanticized fantasy for disturbed and angry young men (in particular) looking to take the world down with them. And there’s definitely pattern of the same style of gun popping up in nearly every high profile masa shooting.

My thought considering his practically is that if the desire exists in person to perpetrate such an attack, they will use the next best tool, presumably a pistol. So I wouldn’t assume an AR ban to influence the numbers significantly from what they would have been otherwise. There might very well be some reduction in the number of people killed due to reduced “efficiency” (not to sound so clinical on such a morbid topic).

It’s a complex problem and I don’t believe there is any one solution, let a simple one. If every gun with w legal history were turned in with a gun ban, there would still be an unimaginable amount of guns in this country. Given our gun culture here you can bet black market arms sales would become a massive industry with likely many previously law abiding citizens getting involved.

I’ve never considered this but those who want to legalize drugs because banning them hasn’t worked are often people who want to ban guns. Kinda ironic but I digress. I don’t subscribe to binary ideas on any of these matters.

Back to guns, i believe we need a multifaceted approach that provides protection to society but also strives to maintain our freedoms. The irony, as I often say is, the more the “not another inch” people fail to inch.. or in some cases inch backwards into less protections; the more heinous atrocities occur, the more people support outright bans or other severe restrictions.

First we need high quality data and for it be analyzed objectively and without aiming to promote an agenda. That data should then inform laws- like we already have really good evidence those <24 (really men specifically) are most likely to be involved with gun-related violence. Maybe raise the age, at least for pistols and ARs, to 24? Grandfather in existing owners under 24 so as not to deprive a right they already had. After X years assesses the data to see if the law worked (based on predetermined metrics). If yes, keep the law on the books. If not, remove it. Or extend it and reassess again when you have more data

Testing out laws like this that must meet agreed upon outcomes and be supported by evidence makes it a lot harder to argue in absolutes the merits of a law when by design the law must prove itself. And laws that serve no meaningful benefit can get tossed. Maybe politicians would be more likely to cooperate and do more than virtue signal if their policy lwould be formally reviewed for their outcomes.
Click to expand...
This is a verbose post all to say “let’s collect some data guys” but why don’t we try something for once, and banning AR-15s would be fine by me. Doing absolutely nothing doesn’t appear to be working.

Yup, you can’t sell them anymore and everyone should turn their personal guns in for a reimbursement of some sort. Clutch your pearls, gun owners, bemoan the communism of it all, use it to criticize the Dems, you’ll still have other firearms for that sweet, sweet civil war you jerk it to.
 
Edd said:
This is a verbose post all to say “let’s collect some data guys” but why don’t we try something for once, and banning AR-15s would be fine by me. Doing absolutely nothing doesn’t appear to be working.

Yup, you can’t sell them anymore and everyone should turn their personal guns in for a reimbursement of some sort. Clutch your pearls, gun owners, bemoan the communism of it all, use it to criticize the Dems, you’ll still have other firearms for that sweet, sweet civil war you jerk it to.
Click to expand...

I think if you are able to collect data to prove that laws work, it’s a lot easier to justify their existence to people. If you’re not aware the US government banned the CDC from researching gun violence in 1996 which has in effect shut down a lot of research and much of what remains in partisan crap. It’s too easy to manipulate the data.

Given that rifles only account for something like 3% of homicides but AR’a are found in seemingly almost all these public mass killings, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ban them.

The problem with what sounds like your idea of offering an optional buy back is that (according to google), there’s like 20-25 million “AR Style” guns in this country. Many gun owners are not going to give up their AR-15 for any amount of money. How much is the government willing to spend to get everyone else’s? Keep in mind some of these cost thousands of dollars and will instantly become priceless. A mandatory buyback.. knowing how fanatical some gun owners are you’s be asking for the next civil war.

I think there’s only so much political capital to be spent on guns and the right has very little interest in changes and in the aftermath of a crisis will only go so far - if anything enacting symbolic laws. Banning AR’s is a huge order.

I’m not sure given the choice between an AR ban and for example moving the minimum age of semi auto weapons to 24, the former would provide more benefit. Obviously there’s no reason both cannot be done, but politics doesn’t seem to work that way. Increasing the age would likely cut gun related deaths, crime, and incarcerations quite significantly and far more than any type of AR ban.
 
Numerous failures by law enforcement in Maine to do check-ups on the shooter earlier in October


Nearly three months before Wednesday’s attacks, the shooter tried to buy a firearm silencer from Coastal Defense Firearms in Auburn, Maine, but the owner of the store, Rick LaChapelle, refused to let him complete the purchase after he disclosed on a form that he had mental health issues, The New York Times reported.​

A silencer? Those are legal in Maine? Seriously?
 
Someone elsewhere turned up a piece of doggerel, which was posted on some site a week after the last squatters were rooted out of the Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon

(17 Feb 2016) Brian Bilston said:
England is a cup of tea,
France, a ripened wheel of brie,
Greece a short squat olive tree
America hs a gun.

Brazil is football in the sand,
Argentia, Maradona's hand,
Germany, an oompah band,
America is a gun.

Holland is a wooden shoe,
Hungary, a goulash stew,
Australia, a kangaroo,
America is a gun.

Japan is a thermal spring,
Scotland is a highland fling,
Oh, better to be anything
than America as a gun.

– Brian Bilston
Click to expand...
 
Yoused said:
A silencer? Those are legal in Maine? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Those are federally regulated as a Class 3 device, same as a full auto. You can't just walk into a gun store and buy one.

And technically they are called suppressors because they don't really silence the shot like in the movies. JMHO, but subsonic ammo is quieter than regular ammo with a suppressor.
 
not sure if this should be under Florida kid.

Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after fight over Christmas gifts​

A 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister in Florida after a family argument over Christmas presents, officials said Tuesday.

The teen had been out shopping on Christmas Eve with Abrielle Baldwin, his 23-year-old sister, as well as his mother, 15-year-old brother and sister's children, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said during a news conference.

The teenage brothers got into an argument about who was getting more Christmas presents.


"They had this family spat about who was getting what and what money was being spent on who, and they were having this big thing going on in this store," Gualtieri said.

The boys continued to argue at their grandmother's house in Largo — a city about a half hour's drive from Tampa — Gualtieri said. They'd gone there so the grandmother could babysit Baldwin's baby boy and her 6-year-old son while Baldwin was at work.

Once inside, the 14-year-old boy allegedly pulled out a semiautomatic handgun, pointed it at his brother and told him he was going to shoot him in the head, Gualtieri said. The older teen said he didn't want to fight and told his brother to get out of the house. One of their uncles separated the teens and got the 14-year-old boy outside, where Baldwin was with her baby.

"'You all need to leave that stuff alone,'" Baldwin said to her brother, according to Gualtieri. "'Why you trying to start it? It's Christmas.'"

The 14-year-old boy called his sister several derogatory words and told her he was going to shoot her and her baby. He allegedly shot her in the chest around 1:45 p.m. local time.

The baby, who was in a carrier, was not injured, Gualtieri said.

The 15-year-old brother came outside with his own semiautomatic handgun and allegedly shot the younger teen in the stomach, police said. He then ran, throwing the gun into a nearby yard. The teen was taken into custody at a relative's house.


news.yahoo.com

Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after fight over Christmas gifts

An argument over Christmas gifts turned deadly in Florida after a 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
Back
Top