Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Another thing I’ve been thinking about. What about having a group of law enforcement officials and mental health professionals that creep social media looking for these kind of posts like the shooter had posted. In many cases there are signs and hints online of what these kids are up to. Most are dealing with depression, many have photos with their weapons posted online. If the guns aren’t going away then maybe we need to have a group of professionals dedicated solely to looking for, tracking and eventually making contact with people that fit these sorts of profiles. I’m sure it would be an enormous task but it would be something, right? I think some of these shooters could be reached if officials were organized and actively looking for these kinds of things online.

I don’t know, maybe that’s an impossible thing. The internet is a big place.

We have that already. It's called the FBI.

[flamesfever]

I believe that if anything is done, it is going to have to be done in a logical, step by step manner, and is treated as a national emergency:

1. Establish that "right to bear arms" does not include mass human killing devices like automatic weapons, or any weapon capable of becoming one.

2. Establish restrictions to ownership based on degrees of violent or potentially violent behavior:

a. criminal record with associated violence - ownership denied

b. for any demonstrated act of violence (to be defined) - ownership denied or waiting period

c. for reasons of mental health (to be defined) - ownership denied or waiting period

d. for reasons of social media (to be defined) - ownership denied or waiting period

Stiff penalties to weapon sellers for non compliance

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Again, I'm completely on board with gun control, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the realistic options are.



First of all, who's going to track this and administer this and decide what posts are grounds for putting a person an a no guns list? This is a legal hornets nest. I read where the FBI gets 1500 tips a day and most are based around face book posts. Also again a post is not a crime, nor can any conviction be granted without a crime. Posts can certainly be crimes, depends on what is said

Can you even do something like this in the name of public safety, because frankly it goes against innocent before guilty, especially since no crime has been convicted. Again, gotta break this concept of guilt/innocence etc, this is not a criminal proceeding, it’s applying for a privilege.

We've all said that the idiot quota is filled daily by posts on forums and public media. I just don't see how anything like this can be enforced. Again, if you wanna spout off like a moron on social media, be prepared to be treated as if you were spouting off on speakers corner

I mean are you ok with Kathy Griffin for example being put on a watch list and heavily investigated because she held up a bloody fake head of Donald Trump. Sure, that was a pretty stupid thing for her to do and I don’t even like Trump

I would argue by being able to change people's status based on social media, but the other side will argue that this is the first step to a police state. No one is getting thrown in jail for any of this, but it would stop you from applying for a privilege. Just like spouting off in certain topics might get you banned from riding an airplane.

Also lets say that this guy goes online and says I'm going to murder people. They dispatch the FBI and he says, look, I was angry and I was blowing off steam, I would never ever do anything like this, then are you obligated to remove the whole he can't buy guns thing, or do you need to establish a whole other court system where a judge has to make that decision? Base it on civil law, the balance of probabilities. Way lower threshold. I have zero sympathy for some man child who spouted off on Facebook and is now having a pity party because he can’t go buy a gun




What's the grounds for the subpoena? What's the crime that's been committed? You're going to basically have to strike down the first amendment fights to self expression, the second amendment rights to fire arms will have to be redefined, and you're going to really clutter up the courts getting a subpoena, based on facebook posts or a threatening conversation. mayb the onus should be on the one applying for the privilege. Want a gun? Then sign a medical consent for applicable records.

On top of that, I would think that if that came to pass, that less people would actually seek treatment in help due to the fear of someone being able to pry into my private treatment without an actual crime being commitment. This would be completely up to the person applying for firearms ownership privilege. You don’t want people to know? Great, but you sob get a gun. I don’t like being patted down or through a body scanner at airports but I do because I want to fly.

I've used the term minority report style law enforcement, and I think that a lot of people want that right now because they're angry and they think that its the answer. But they probably will until it goes into effect. Again, important to note that no ones being arrested, homes aren’t being raided, but if you don’t wanna play ball, no guns for you.





Isn't that up to the individual. The therapist or Doctor certainly can't enforce it, they can suggest it. I think that what you're going to say is that if the therapist or doctor senses that there's a real threat, that he should be able to call a tip line that would create a record or even bring in law enforcement for the good of society. However again, I would worry about the impact for anyone that's seeking help for serious mental health issues or even addiction issues being willing to voluntarily ask for help from the system for fear that what they say can be laid bare without a crime being committed.if a doctor or therapist believes a person is about to commit a crime like murder they are duty bound to report it. And again, if you want a gun so bad, sign the medical release for your mental health history





What you're talking about is something like "Can nobody do something about this damn priest". Saying the courts need to be bought to heel is a frightening proposition. Just because you think that something is right doesn't mean that you can subvert the rule of law to make it happen, that leads to a government with way too much power. [B]the courts have been “brought to heel” on numerous things in the past, abortion, slavery, voting rights for women and minorities. This was due to legal challenges and public pressure. Perhaps the term “brought to heel” was too inflammatory. [B]

The courts ask as a powerful check to government, but if you can suddenly have the government bringing the courts to heel. Or worse yet you suddenly want a fully electable supreme court that has to campaign on how they'd change the law instead of acting as priests to enforce and interpret the law, you have a really frightening concept. I agree with you in almost every instance however, it is long past due for the courts to re-examine and modernize the 2nd amendment





Until you have the discussion around privilege vs right and redefine the constitution, this is really not a discussion. I'm not trying to be a jerk here or say give everyone a gun. That's not the point of this. Fair enough

Once you start eroding and redefining rights what goes next. Do people that do shootings lose their right to a defense attorney, does that become a privilege as well. What about the right to humane treatments, and even the rights to citizenship? Of course not

I know I'm being a bit over the top on the last part. But the point that I'm getting at, is if you start removing constitutional rights based on possibilities its not going to be a genie that you can put back in the bottle. Again in my opinion this can be rectified with the re examining of that particular amendment.

I firmly believe that the path to gun control is a mechanics issue instead of fighting constitutional battles.

I believe that gun control is based around enforcement and access, then guessing that someone is going to do harm.

Sorry typing from a phone

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe that if anything is done, it is going to have to be done in a logical, step by step manner, and is treated as a national emergency:

1. Establish that "right to bear arms" does not include mass human killing devices like automatic weapons, or any weapon capable of becoming one.

This already exists.

2. Establish restrictions to ownership based on degrees of violent or potentially violent behavior:

a. criminal record with associated violence - ownership denied

This already exists.

b. for any demonstrated act of violence (to be defined) - ownership denied or waiting period

This already exists.

c. for reasons of mental health (to be defined) - ownership denied or waiting period

d. for reasons of social media (to be defined) - ownership denied or waiting period

Impossible to define, monitor, or control. Mental health records are private and are subject to confidentiality rules. Social media cannot be used as a reason to restrict ownership. The costs to prove an individual stated something on social media alone would be cost prohibitive.

Stiff penalties to weapon sellers for non compliance

Impossible to enforce. Weapons ownership, while protected in the constitution, is a states right thing.

The angle to take in all of this is not to control weapons. It is to control ammunition. Place taxes on ammunition so it makes it cost prohibitive to buy. Make certain rounds so expensive they make the weapons unusable. 2nd amendment is not infringed upon and you put in place a pragmatic control. Finally, serialize rounds and create a registry around the flow of ammunition. Problem solved. You'd also know when someone is buying up large amounts of ammunition and can flag those individuals for closer observation.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was onboard with all of your points, but your points C and D are almost an impossibility without major changes to the law and constitution and will have unintended severe consequences in that you're net becomes really large in terms of police enforcements.

I am all about access. the Constitution does give the right to bear arms, but the problem is it doesn't define the type of arms. That can be worked around, but you would need the support of either your own lobby group, or the NRA.

You have the right to bear single shot arms with a range of no longer then 8 feet and it has to be a breach loader.

Probably won't pass, but you get my meaning.

I'm convinced you want to fight gun ownership, then you need a powerful richer ally then the NRA causing shyte at every level of government, and you can still have the right to bear arms, it just becomes a perilous right.

So here's the deal

You can buy arms, but because of the clear and present danger that's occurring and the huge monetary costs cause by firearms, you now must have like your car, insurance for your firearm.

The starting point minimum is $10,000 dollars per year, it goes up from there. If you have gun related crimes on your record it goes sky high. If the insurance company does a back ground check and see's threats of violence it goes up.

If you are caught with a un insured fire arm. 5 years in jail
Violent act with a gun life with parole after 10 years.
Violent act causing death life no parole
Mass Shooting execution.

So why does the insurance industry do this. because of this.

there are 300 million firearms in the US. at $10,000 per year for firearms insurance that adds up to a $3 trillion dollar industry minimum.

Now you have a powerful lobby, making money hand over fist that is now going to fight for greater gun control in the name of cost control, that would basically kick the ever loving crap out of the NRA.

You want to counter the NRA's public message? You put the insurance industry in charge of a public relations campaign. You want gun control candidates, you can bet the insurance companies would be able to out campaign the NRA.

You want serious reform for gun control, set the gun insurance industry in charge.

You enforce having or using an un-insured gun, and put the insurance companies in charge of background checks as a corporate insurance policy instead of a constitutional rights debate and you probably win.

"Sorry sir, we did a background check on you and you said some disturbing things on your twitter account. So our policy sir to give you insurance is to have you go through an interview with our psychologist. As well you're insurance is going to be $15,000 dollars a year."

"If our doctor says you're not a threat you can insure a firearm. If he thinks your a mild danger you have to pay this much. If your a major threat sir you will be denied. Oh and let me lay out the penalties for buying and using an un-insured fire arm sir, and I'll need you to sign this waiver that I explained this all to you."

Anyways just crazy right? But suddenly you create a major industry, jobs, private enforcement, a huge money lobby with powerful friends, and it gets around constitutional issues in a very nice way.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Sorry typing from a phone

Fair enough but changing a right to a privileged is not a simple thing, and your whole premise is around that.

Its an argument that will probably never get passed the courts.

[Lanny_McDonald]

@captain crunch

Gun owner insurance already exists. It is there to protect people from possible civil damages as a result of a discharge event, or cover health care costs as a result of a self inflicted wound. Strictly voluntary, but is there for the benefit of the owner and not as any sort of deterrent.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by New Era

@captain crunch

Gun owner insurance already exists. It is there to protect people from possible civil damages as a result of a discharge event, or cover health care costs as a result of a self inflicted wound. Strictly voluntary, but is there for the benefit of the owner and not as any sort of deterrent.

I know, but how much would it take to make it mandatory like it is with car insurance.

Let me put it this way, if you went from voluntary to mandatory how big would the pie increase?

And there's nothing in the constitution about forcing the people to insure.

And just think about this.

If the insurance company had to ensure 300 million firearms against use against for example other people, how long would it take for them to put a anti-shooting safety in place on a gun with a incentive?

You'd probably have to give the Insurance company torte reform for them to sign on though.

But lets say that you have 300 million guns with a minimum of 3 trillion in revenues if you have a minimum insurance of $10,000 a year. And out of that maybe there are 250,000 gun incidences that have to be paid out with a million dollar liability, that's $250,000,000 in payout costs, which means there's a possible profit of 2,750 billion dollars maximum.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

1. Establish that "right to bear arms" does not include mass human killing devices like automatic weapons, or any weapon capable of becoming one.

Originally Posted by New Era

This already exists.

Not really

An AR-15 with a high capacity mag is a mass killing device, and adding a bump stock makes it an automatic weapon

[FlamesAddiction]

A 15 year old kid is credited with saving his classmates while he was shot 5 times holding the door shut so the shooter couldn't get in.

It sounds like he will make it, but he will need surgeries and future care. Sad that the family needs to seek donations to help him. This sort of thing should be covered.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/antho...und-me/?b2np=d

[wwkayaker]

The school’s insurance should cover the boy’s healthcare costs.

[missdpuck]

3 dead as PBSO investigates shooting, crashhttps://www.wptv.com/news/region-c-palm-beach-county/investigation-crash-shuts-section-of-belvedere-road-in-suburban-west-palm-beach

This sort of thing happens several times a month now.

About a week and a half ago, a section of I95 was closed down for most of the day due to a similar situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Again, I'm completely on board with gun control, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the realistic options are.







First of all, who's going to track this and administer this and decide what posts are grounds for putting a person an a no guns list? This is a legal hornets nest. I read where the FBI gets 1500 tips a day and most are based around face book posts. Also again a post is not a crime, nor can any conviction be granted without a crime.



Can you even do something like this in the name of public safety, because frankly it goes against innocent before guilty, especially since no crime has been convicted.



We've all said that the idiot quota is filled daily by posts on forums and public media. I just don't see how anything like this can be enforced.



I mean are you ok with Kathy Griffin for example being put on a watch list and heavily investigated because she held up a bloody fake head of Donald Trump.



I would argue by being able to change people's status based on social media, but the other side will argue that this is the first step to a police state.



Also lets say that this guy goes online and says I'm going to murder people. They dispatch the FBI and he says, look, I was angry and I was blowing off steam, I would never ever do anything like this, then are you obligated to remove the whole he can't buy guns thing, or do you need to establish a whole other court system where a judge has to make that decision?









What's the grounds for the subpoena? What's the crime that's been committed? You're going to basically have to strike down the first amendment fights to self expression, the second amendment rights to fire arms will have to be redefined, and you're going to really clutter up the courts getting a subpoena, based on facebook posts or a threatening conversation.



On top of that, I would think that if that came to pass, that less people would actually seek treatment in help due to the fear of someone being able to pry into my private treatment without an actual crime being commitment.



I've used the term minority report style law enforcement, and I think that a lot of people want that right now because they're angry and they think that its the answer. But they probably will until it goes into effect.











Isn't that up to the individual. The therapist or Doctor certainly can't enforce it, they can suggest it. I think that what you're going to say is that if the therapist or doctor senses that there's a real threat, that he should be able to call a tip line that would create a record or even bring in law enforcement for the good of society. However again, I would worry about the impact for anyone that's seeking help for serious mental health issues or even addiction issues being willing to voluntarily ask for help from the system for fear that what they say can be laid bare without a crime being committed.











What you're talking about is something like "Can nobody do something about this damn priest". Saying the courts need to be bought to heel is a frightening proposition. Just because you think that something is right doesn't mean that you can subvert the rule of law to make it happen, that leads to a government with way too much power.



The courts ask as a powerful check to government, but if you can suddenly have the government bringing the courts to heel. Or worse yet you suddenly want a fully electable supreme court that has to campaign on how they'd change the law instead of acting as priests to enforce and interpret the law, you have a really frightening concept.











Until you have the discussion around privilege vs right and redefine the constitution, this is really not a discussion. I'm not trying to be a jerk here or say give everyone a gun. That's not the point of this.



Once you start eroding and redefining rights what goes next. Do people that do shootings lose their right to a defense attorney, does that become a privilege as well. What about the right to humane treatments, and even the rights to citizenship?



I know I'm being a bit over the top on the last part. But the point that I'm getting at, is if you start removing constitutional rights based on possibilities its not going to be a genie that you can put back in the bottle.



I firmly believe that the path to gun control is a mechanics issue instead of fighting constitutional battles.



I believe that gun control is based around enforcement and access, then guessing that someone is going to do harm.

So much depends upon why a person is in therapy.

Just from personal experience- I went into therapy because I was threatened/stalked and scared to death.

I wasn’t going to go on a rampage and kill masses of people. I was a nervous wreck.

Yet, I’m sure some could view that as someone in that position as being a risk by calling it paranoia- if they wanted to stretch it.

No, I don’t have a gun and have never attempted to get one. If I move to a rural area I might, and often wonder if the therapy thing could someday be held against me.

Well said as always, Cap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Yamer]

Wow. Hero's Welcome, by Pia Guerra.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Wow. Hero's Welcome, by Pia Guerra.

For those who may not know (I didn't) Aaron Feis was the football coach credited with saving the lives of some of the students when he gave his life shielding them with his own body.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...200965774.html

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Not really

An AR-15 with a high capacity mag is a mass killing device, and adding a bump stock makes it an automatic weapon

Yes, really. The laws are on the books. The National Fire Arms act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, provide all the regulation required. This restricts ownership of various classes of weapons. It also restricts modifications. The problem with bump stocks is they are not considered a modification, which would prohibit their sale, which they clearly are. Just like many things in the US, immigration as an example, there are laws on the books that should be used to regulate matters. The problem is no one wants to regulate guns, especially since it is a states rights issue.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes, really. The laws are on the books. The National Fire Arms act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, provide all the regulation required. This restricts ownership of various classes of weapons. It also restricts modifications. The problem with bump stocks is they are not considered a modification, which would prohibit their sale, which they clearly are. Just like many things in the US, immigration as an example, there are laws on the books that should be used to regulate matters. The problem is no
one wants to regulate guns, especially since it is a states rights issue.

I'm well aware of the laws on the books but because there's laws allowing 100 round mags doesn't make those laws right, any weapon that can continue to shoot as fast as you can move a finger needs it's own restriction and the law re-written. any law that considers a bump stock not a modification is plain crazy when you consider over 500 were shot in Vegas in 7 minutes

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes, really. The laws are on the books. The National Fire Arms act of 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968, provide all the regulation required. This restricts ownership of various classes of weapons. It also restricts modifications. The problem with bump stocks is they are not considered a modification, which would prohibit their sale, which they clearly are. Just like many things in the US, immigration as an example, there are laws on the books that should be used to regulate matters. The problem is no one wants to regulate guns, especially since it is a states rights issue.

it probably could do with a review to determine how relevant they are, because you know things change.

[afc wimbledon]

The 1968 gun control act is an object lesson on how to change gun laws in the US, it came about as a result of the Black Panthers arming themselves with Gerrand rifles.

You really want gun control in the US then buy every black guy in the US an AR 15 and an open carry permit, things will be banned inside a week.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Ya the only time the NRA doesn't get all bent out of shape and start a national furor when someone's 2nd amendment rights are threatened is if that person happens to be black