Keep in mind, a band-aid to throw at this “but everybody knew” is red flag laws.
It’s pretty hard to distinguish, sometimes, between the “he was on our radar” meme and the “see this is why we need red flag laws everywhere that can just take away people’s guns because a neighbor yada yada” argument
I’d say, we have to ask, what due process was carried out with him during the summer? Is that the process we want? Why or why not? If not, what process do we want?
Long deliberate thought to the process, not a knee-jerk reaction
I’m okay with going after those who did not do their job and allowed a person with significant mental issues to have access to guns, as the law indicates he should not.
However we must do a better job of not allowing those with TRUE mental issues to have access to weapons they can either harm themselves or others with. It’s very simple unfortunately the lib media and politicians will blame this whole event on guns, when in fact it is due to a person with a mental issue who had access to gun he should not have had.
I don’t agree in the theoretical “red flag” laws. Spending two weeks under a doctor’s supervision, hearing voices, a high degree of paranoia definitely constitutes a serious mental problem diagnosed by a professional, my neighbors are not professionals!
Spending time in an institution is like the dye pack exploding, that’s him, the guy with the purple dye! As far as friends trying to calm his mental faculties from hearing voices, is something that requires interdiction.
I’m not the expert on solving this problem. However, when the country is in a stable condition, which is rare, this doesn’t take place as often. This only started in the 90’s. This was NEVER heard of in the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s.
Barring the Texas sniper!
Was it MTV, single parent homes, welfare, same sex family homes, schools, gangs, jobs, ( actually jobs, they took away all our manufacturing ) politicians, abortion, drugs…take your pick. Is it pronoun usage, forcing ideologies down our throats , ridiculous agendas like climate change, the sky is falling mentality? Or all of the above! The decades I mention had their turmoil, but nothing on the national disgrace we’re going through!
The reality is, there are now twice as many people in this country as there were when many or most of us here were born. There have been millions flooding in that we know nothing about. With hundreds of millions of people here, some are going to go crazy.
This is a constitutionally armed citizenry. We can have all the red flag laws in the world, and still some lunatic will slip through and want to massacre innocent people. The only way to truly protect against it is for the innocent people to be armed and able to defend themselves. There have been countless mass shootings stopped by an armed good guy. Sadly, last night, the good guys weren’t ready.
While I agree about the need for mental health treatment; I am cynically saying this proves that the government should ban all military expert shooters and trainers.
Out of curiosity/for future use, is there a reliable source citing that these places were conspicuously posted as off limits per the law you would be willing to link us to?
I would ask, why did he spend two week’s under a doctor’s supervision? What was that doctor’s expertise and what was that doctor’s official opinion/judgment/diagnosis after the two weeks?
Why did he spend time in an institution, what due process caused that to happen?
I don’t want to give the clicks and views and ad money to the media going all in on this so I don’t want to look those up right now, but you seem to know so I am asking you if you can answer these questions and possibly link directly to where you got the answer?
You say the doctor did whatever…do you support a doctor getting to unilaterally decide a person isn’t fit to keep and bear arms (or maybe even be let free from the institution)? Or was there more going on than the doctor supervising him for two weeks?
You stated they were gun free zones. Did you read that somewhere?
I’m just trying to cut through what misinformation might be out there. I’d hate to go into a debate with an anti gunner armed with the information that they were gun free zones if it turned out they were perfectly legal for carry.
I haven’t seen anybody definitively say or post either way yet.
They chose to be there they chose not to defend themselves. If someone is bleeding to death in your car are you going to drive the speed limit to get to the hospital. You are going to get to the hospital as fast as you safely can. Maybe if people didn’t follow unsafe laws we would be better off. What would we rather do blame someone for murder or prevent one and be blamed for it?
But, it’s going to be viewed differently to exceed the speed limit (even that will be within reason) if someone is potentially bleeding out in your car vs if you speed when you are on the way to Walmart to buy chips
If it was illegal to carry the gun in Walmart, but legal in the parking lot, and someone started shooting up the store, and you went to your car and got your gun and went back in with it to attempt to stop the shooter, I think that would be analogous to the speeding with a bleeding person to the hospital analogy. And I would be shocked if you were convicted for carrying in the store in that situation.
But, if you carried your gun illegally in walmart to buy chips “just in case”, I don’t think that defense would hold up
In fact, I don’t support it. It’s going to take a little more than one such opinion. I normally get two or three opinions when buying a car! When it comes to my well being and my rights, I’ll need more than an opinion.
I would say if you pose a threat to yourself or others, it would be a temporary solution. That threat statement seems to be the standard in any psych case. Yes, I think due process, is due in all cases and should be proven in a court of law, that such a person is not qualified to possess a firearm.
Not that I trust the system anymore! There in lies the problem!
It seems we’re not following the “broken windows” theory when it comes to people. I’m no doc, but from history I’ve learned that fire-starters, bedwetters and small animal killers, tend to be violent predators. Then grow up with a mean streak. What I think has happened, is we stopped “profiling”. If anything, the roles have been reversed, criminals are profiling everything and everyone they see, everyday.
Way more information is required from @john1365 for me to intelligently offer an answer.
Even if I did have the answers, I don’t have the context.
The bottom line there is way more information is required…and I think that applies to what we here currently know about the guy in Maine as well, and how we want to say that should have been handled/should be handled in the future.
It could be that it ends up being clear cut we dropped the ball and he should have never had that opportunity, or maybe not
I just want us to be really careful in yelling out loud about how obvious it was this guy should have been stripped of his RKBA or maybe held in custody based on the 20/20 hindsight of what he did without really knowing much in detail about the process that lead up to it.
Red flag laws are scary. Stripping Rights because of receiving mental health help is to be done with great care/caution
There’s another case. I wouldn’t be shocked. I think I would be charged especially if I went to retrieve my firearm, I’m not in an immediate threat of grave bodily harm while outside at my car door.
It seems to be the practice now. Case in point the prankster and the delivery kid. The kid was cleared for shooting the prankster, but better being charged and held for firing a weapon in an occupied business! That one I can’t make sense out of!
Best explanation yet.