|
Post by haggis on Nov 6, 2017 17:19:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 6, 2017 17:46:54 GMT -5
He should have been flagged on a background check under the Lautenburg Amendment. He was not. The point remains: The system and laws in place failed. Those who caused the failure should be punished harshly. Instead, they will receive at most a really stern finger wagging. Adding more laws would be like stopping speeders by lowering the speed limit further or punishing curfew violators with an earlier curfew. I don't necessarily disagree with your last point, but I don't think your first point is correct. CNN reports he was court martialed for assaulting his spouse, and he was sentenced (by the military) to a year in confinement and a bad conduct discharge. That probably did not meet the criteria of the Lautenberg Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 6, 2017 18:44:27 GMT -5
According to this, he not only beat his wife, he also fractured the skull of his stepson, and then later on faced animal cruelty charges for abusing a dog. And on top of that, he was previously turned down for a gun license in Texas. It really looks like a mistake to me, that this guy was able to buy a gun. He seems like exactly the type of person who even pro-gun advocates should have no issue denying a gun to, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 18:53:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 6, 2017 19:31:36 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I think: No. When a white supremacist runs down a peaceful demonstrator with his car, he dithers and declares there was wrong on both sides. A white man blows away 59 people and wounds hundreds from his hotel room hundreds of yards away. He sends thoughts and prayers. A man annihilates his hometown church congregation as they worship - and he monitors the situation. Colin Kaepernick sits for the national anthem, to peacefully protest a grave injustice he sees. He’s told sitting is disrespectful - kneeling would be better. So he takes a knee. Donald Trump demands that, when anyone who behaves like that, they should fire the son of a bitch. Many have been saying it for a long time, and I’ve not been so outspoken. But that time is over. Donald Trump is not just stupid (though streetwise in his way) and narcissistic. He is a racist, he’s evil, and he is an enemy of democracy and freedom. He is an enemy of America. And he will burn her to the ground if there’s a buck in it for him, much less to save his hide. Trump says whatever suits him at the time. That doesn't mean he's automatically wrong in what he says, just that there's reason to celebrate when he's right. The fact that he's saying this isn't a gun issue, but a mental health issue isn't, at least IMHO, an example of him being right even by accident. Until we know how he got the gun, if it passed through safe guards and if there was a practical way that a new safe guard could have prevented him from obtaining the gun, then he shouldn't declare anything.
Also, while this schmuck may have had mental illness issues, can we not conflate mental illness with mass shootings. The vast majority of people who suffer from a mental illness aren't a danger to anyone, except maybe themselves and even that isn't a given. Let's not stigmatize someone who may suffer depression or anxiety as one step away from blowing away a bunch of innocent people. (This isn't directed at anyone on this board.)
Yes, I agree - Trump says whatever occurs to him at the time, and to him, that becomes truth. (I just posted that very thing in another thread here last night.) Other than that, I'm not sure what your response has to do with my post. I'm not the one who conflated the two; it's Trump - the same one who, back in February, removed obstacles for people with mental illness to obtaining guns (as I posted earlier in this thread).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 19:32:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 6, 2017 19:54:14 GMT -5
THAT is why it's not too soon to talk about this, "low class" though it may be.
The best time to talk about it is BEFORE THE NEXT ONE HAPPENS.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 6, 2017 20:45:07 GMT -5
Trump says whatever suits him at the time. That doesn't mean he's automatically wrong in what he says, just that there's reason to celebrate when he's right. The fact that he's saying this isn't a gun issue, but a mental health issue isn't, at least IMHO, an example of him being right even by accident. Until we know how he got the gun, if it passed through safe guards and if there was a practical way that a new safe guard could have prevented him from obtaining the gun, then he shouldn't declare anything.
Also, while this schmuck may have had mental illness issues, can we not conflate mental illness with mass shootings. The vast majority of people who suffer from a mental illness aren't a danger to anyone, except maybe themselves and even that isn't a given. Let's not stigmatize someone who may suffer depression or anxiety as one step away from blowing away a bunch of innocent people. (This isn't directed at anyone on this board.)
Yes, I agree - Trump says whatever occurs to him at the time, and to him, that becomes truth. (I just posted that very thing in another thread here last night.) Other than that, I'm not sure what your response has to do with my post. I'm not the one who conflated the two; it's Trump - the same one who, back in February, removed obstacles for people with mental illness to obtaining guns (as I posted earlier in this thread). No, but the 2nd part of what I said was my going on about what he said. It's easy to blame this on whatever boogie man fits your narrative, or deflects from your narrative. But you can't complain about rushing to judgment about whatever while rushing to judgement about something else.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 6, 2017 20:55:03 GMT -5
THAT is why it's not too soon to talk about this, "low class" though it may be. The best time to talk about it is BEFORE THE NEXT ONE HAPPENS. I'd submit we should have a conversation about gun regulation, but not right after something like this as if this triggered it (No pun intended) where we're trying to say, if we only had this regulation, this would not have happened. Well, until we know what happened, how a new law would affect.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 6, 2017 20:55:53 GMT -5
Excuse me? Where's my rush to judgment?
I still have no idea what the connection is between my post and yours, or what my "narrative" is. If you want to accuse me of something, come out with it. Otherwise, get off my back.
And, as per Cass' post above, it sounds like the people who matter have a pretty good notion of how he got the gun.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 6, 2017 20:58:09 GMT -5
THAT is why it's not too soon to talk about this, "low class" though it may be. The best time to talk about it is BEFORE THE NEXT ONE HAPPENS. I'd submit we should have a conversation about gun regulation, but not right after something like this as if this triggered it (No pun intended) where we're trying to say, if we only had this regulation, this would not have happened. Well, until we know what happened, how a new law would affect. It happens every fucking week. How long do you want to wait, and how many more people have to die while you wait for things to cool off? Will things *ever* "cool off"? A retweet from Phil Plait (@badastronomer): Today is the 309th day of 2017. There have been 377 mass shootings in the US this year. So far. www.massshootingtracker.org/Another neat fact to think about during that cooling-off time: Remember Columbine? Well, it's not even in the top ten worst mass shootings in America anymore. But sure, we've got all the time in the world. What more do you want to know about what happened, and how many more times until you're willing to talk about it?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 6, 2017 21:06:50 GMT -5
I'd submit we should have a conversation about gun regulation, but not right after something like this as if this triggered it (No pun intended) where we're trying to say, if we only had this regulation, this would not have happened. Well, until we know what happened, how a new law would affect. It happens every fucking week. How long do you want to wait, and how many more people have to die while you wait for things to cool off? A retweet from Phil Plait (@badastronomer): Today is the 309th day of 2017. There have been 377 mass shootings in the US this year. So far. www.massshootingtracker.org/Another neat fact to think about during that cooling-off time: Remember Columbine? Well, it's not even in the top ten worst mass shootings in America anymore. But sure, we've got all the time in the world. What more do you want to know about what happened, and how many more times until you're willing to talk about it? I want to talk about specific laws and how they can help. Not, hurry up and do something because this just happened.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 6, 2017 21:09:01 GMT -5
You've had years to do this. It's not like we're starting from day 0. See above -- this is happening all the damn time. It's not a "rush to judgement". You've got empirical evidence and data and bodies piled higher every week. This has been happening over years.
What are your thoughts so far?
And you still haven't explained: - what you meant by my "narrative", and what hypothesis I'm apparently attempting to shoehorn into it - where I'm rushing to judgement - how my post back there related your reply. I presume the first two answers will yield this one.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 6, 2017 21:22:08 GMT -5
Well, first off, I agree that we should have that discussion. I'm not anti gun control. I've never owned a gun. I think there needs to be something done at the federal level, so that if something in one state it's easily found in another. I think there should be something triggered for a warning if a person starts buys a crap ton of guns, ammo, or what have you all at once, someone is told to look into it. I'm not a fan of people on secret terror watch lists being banned, since there's no due process to get on those, but if there's someone on a watch list that buys guns, maybe that should trigger someone to actually watch them. A little closer. There are probably other things I'd be for that I'm not thinking about right now. There's a lot of bureaucracy involved that can be streamlined to make things more efficient. Also, there my quoting in your post wasn't something I was challenging you about. It was a general you, or in the case of you shouldn't do this and then do that, was really in reference to Trump doing that. His talk about this being a mental health issue was a way of deflecting talk about gun control. In other worse, don't rush to judgement on gun control based on this, instead let's rush to judgement on how it's a mental health issue. It wasn't a reference to you rushing to judgement. Also, it's not too soon to talk about gun control, just in context of this shooting.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 6, 2017 21:49:52 GMT -5
Ah, I see.
No - STOP IT. I have this big old righteous head of steam worked up, and now it turns out we're on the same page?
Crap.
*sigh*
|
|