Thank you for your service sir.
Iām pretty sure if there was a mass shooting with a compound bow, the usual suspects would still call for a ban on AR-15s.
it was my honor to serve
at least I served before all of this woke BS 88-94
Yet they were unaware of the 7 firearms purchased and brought into their house subsequently. Donāt know what to make of that, exactly.
Havenāt previous shooters had been reported by credible persons to a variety of authorities, only to have said authorities take no meaningful actions? The whole āsee something, say somethingā early warning system is meaningless if nobody heeds the warnings.
That has definitely happened in other cases where the authorities failed to act on clear and repeated reports of threats. But I havenāt seen any reports that show it happened in this case.
Proper pronouns are deceased psychotic killer!
Nor have I; my intent was to point out the likely futility of parents and/or therapists making such reports in hopes of meaningful actions being taken. In these days of reduced manpower and support for law enforcement, when many jurisdictions donāt have staffing adequate to handle real-time incidents in progress, the investigation of potential bad actors falls lower on their list of priorities, as it must.
Maybe I do know what to make of it, in one aspect, anyway.
The parents may have thought they had solved a potential problem by convincing her to dispose of the original gun she owned. This seems to mirror the thinking of the āletās solve the violence problem by banning gunsā crowd, i.e., once the guns are gone the violence is gone.
They willfully ignore the fact that no government can truly ban anything, but rather only raise the risk associated with acquiring or possessing said banned item. (In todayās criminal justice environment that risk seems like more and more of an empty threat.) I canāt believe that a person willing to accept the risks associated with actually carrying out their murderous intentions will be stopped, or even slowed down to any significant degree, by adding a bit more risk to acquiring/possessing their preferred tool. Thatās to say nothing of the clever miscreant adapting to the ban by weaponizing some other perfectly legal and available items in order to accomplish their violent goals.
I donāt have the answer to the problem of violence in our society, but I know enough to know that banning guns wonāt stop the killers, just like banning matches wonāt stop arsonists, banning alcohol wonāt eliminate drunkeness, and banning free speech wonāt stop people thinking.
Coming up with the right answer isnāt the hardest part of the problem; asking the right question is.
Iām still confused⦠was this a woman pretending to be a man, or a man pretending to be a woman? Or was it a woman pretending to be a woman who just decided to call herself transgender, for some reason?
This murdererās gender identity is not the most important part of this story, itās just weird to me that the press has put out so much information and yet still canāt decide whether to say he or her.
As I understand it so far, the shooter was a born female beginning the process of transitioning to male.
I am, of course, willing to change my understanding in the light of additional new information.
Even when a purchaser is āadjudicated as a mental defectiveā nothing happens to prevent them from purchasing firearms. See, for example, the Virginia Tech shooter who was involuntarily committed or the Southerland Springs shooter who had been court-martialed and committed to a mental institution. So much for the vaunted background checks.
OK, so perhaps the ātransgenderā aspect of this story has been much over-emphasized. A woman who merely changes her pronouns on social media isnāt a transgender woman, sheās just a woman playing with pronouns.
That said, I donāt know how far she had really gone. Someone has speculated earlier that if she had been involved in hormone suppression or testosterone injections, that could have easily affected her behavior. Iām not trying to make excuses for mass murder, Iām just speculating that the press and social media activists jumped all over the transgender aspect of this story when it may not be the key detail they thought it was.
āIt dependsā
In many cases, people do something or have something where they should be put into the system to show up as no on a background checkā¦but that doesnāt actually get done
I read an article last evening where they actually talked to neighbors and another person who was supposed to be a close friend. She was female who wanted to be male. They also hinted that she was lesbian and the whole thing caused major fights with her Christian parents who couldnāt accept it. Dressing like a boy was more recent and she would usually change her clothes after leaving the house and then changing back before she went home. They made it sound like there was a lot of conflict with her parents.
Without being absolutely certain that this is the case here, the effectiveness of the NICS system depends entirely on the timely reporting of disqualifying information from a large number of sources. The background check is only as good as the database.
If there are to be new or additional gun laws enacted, how about we start with one to incentivize mandated reporters to the NICS database to file those reports both accurately and in a timely manner, and including severe penalties for failing to do so. That might be a start.
Well, I do. Too far gone.
Careful with that. cough-red flag laws-cough
Total disconnect. Iām not including red flag laws in any way shape or form. I am only referring to entities who are already required to report certain data to the NICS database.
So-called āred flag lawsā are a completely unconstitutional assault on due process, representation by counsel, facing accusers, self-incrimination, legal possession, innocent until proven guilty, and a host of other protected rights. Red Flag Laws, as currently constituted, are an abomination.
Wait, she was still living with her parents?
OK, forget the whole boy/girl/lesbian/transgender/pronoun question, letās start with the fact that this was a 28-year-old still living with her disapproving parents and changing outfits when leaving the house like some teenager who secretly bought a leather miniskirt. That would have been my first clue that something was off.
The Federal Government with complete and full operational control can not keep contraband out of Federal Super Max Prisons.
Think about it. A Super Max Prison. They can not keep contraband out of a Super Max Prison. People are endlessly inventive and ingenious.
Do, we as a society want to live in the environment it would take?