Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[Cindy in FL.]

It would make a huge difference to those aborted, if no one else. But, I do think it would make a difference in our society if we valued all lives. I don’t see how it couldn’t.

 

We can accept it as part of someone's worship, of course. But, what relevance can it possibly have to this discussion? Especially since the poster says it's always been this way, for hundreds of years, in the US. Would banning abortion make for fewer tragedies? Ending slavery didn't ( ~ 4 million men, women and children at the time, and of course many million before that). If that didn't make things better - and anyone who has studied this Jim Crow South could not say it did - how can we logically conclude that ending abortion would make a difference?

Edited November 7, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[OH_Homeschooler]

No, it doesn't support Poppy's claim that the citizen didn't shoot the shooter, nor her condescending jab about not listening to lying news sources.

You know, you're right. I'm sorry. I think shooting and killing are so closely linked in my mind that I misread and thought she wrote the citizen killed the shooter.

[Butter]

The way you wrote the above implies that there was no value to what the citizen did, as though it was of no consequence, and that the perp committed suicide. 

 

He most certainly was stopped by the "good guy with the gun."  Not stopped immediately, but definitely stopped.

 

1) You have no factual basis to describe the shots as non-fatal.  One can bleed out from a gunshot to the leg, and shots to the torso are notoriously deadly, again, from blood loss, which can take a bit of time.  You don't know; I don't know.

 

2) Yes, the perp fled in a car.  But he called his father, told him he didn't think he was going to make it, and then both lost control of his car and shot himself; the order of those is not known to us. 

 

Had there been no citizen responding, think what the difference would have been! 

 

News interviews with the driver of the car that chased the perp indicated that the citizen and the driver stood watch over the [presumed lifeless] body of the perp with a rifle trained on him, and that it took quite a long time for the police to arrive on the scene, presumably because they were all responding to the scene of the massacre.

 

Again, what if the armed citizen had not been there, and if he had not wounded and chased after the perp?  Do you think he would have fled until there was shootout with the cops?  Do you think he might have taken hostages or killed others along the way?  I do.  I have exactly zero logical reasons to believe that someone this consistently evil over a long time would not have done his best to inflict more evil on others.  

 

The leg and torso shots were not fatal according to the coroner.  It was the self-inflicted head shot that killed him.

 

The gunman had *already exited* the church.  He had *already* shot all those people.  He was done shooting them.  Might he have continued his rampage?  Maybe.  We don't know what his plan was after that, if he even had one.  The citizen confronted him as the gunman exited the church.  That exchange of gunfire *did* cause the gunman to drop his Ruger.  He had two handguns in his car.

 

It is an assumption that when he told his father he didn't think he'd make it it was because of the wounds sustained when the citizen shot him.  He could've meant he didn't think he'd make it because he was being chased.  Often when cornered like that mass shooters kill themselves.

 

Given that it is likely this was ultimately a bizarre domestic issue, he very well may have been completely done once he shot the people in the church (never mind his MIL wasn't even there, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next step for him may have been to go to his ILs house).  We don't know his later intentions and I definitely don't buy your hostage theory.

[Lady Florida.]

But see, Kathy I don't think it is all about the good ole days. Have you ever experienced hardship, loss, conflict in your family or with friends, financial instability or reversals, poor health or any other negative event that somehow impacted your emotional well-being?

 

If you answer "no" the above, skip the rest.

 

If you answer "yes" to any of the above, why, would you say you did not run out and shoot a few people?

Did you not have access to a gun? Would you have done it if you had access to a gun?

If you have access to a gun and did not run out and shoot people, then there is obviously a difference in the way Kathy deals with life events versus someone who chooses the path Kelley did. And this loops back to my pondering why more and more people seem to go this route versus any other coping strategy. I know mental health issues, accessibility of care, etc but I feel there is still a missing piece somewhere.

 

Again: This is just me looking at it from a behavioral / psychological view rather than gun law. I have already "officially" endorsed most of Murphy's suggestions.

 

But people did flip out in the good old days.  What changed is the weapons available. Who is to say that if high powered rifles, and bump stocks and AR whatevers (forgive my ignorance about guns) were available back then that people wouldn't have used them? 

 

There are plenty of people today who don't run out and shoot a few people. I don't think the difference between how I would deal with my problems and how a shooter deals with them is related to anything other than gun availability. The person who would flip out in 2017 is the one who would have flipped out in 1957 or 67 or 77. He or she just has better weapons now. We have more media access as well as guns that can do more damage. People didn't change. People's access to weapons and instant information changed. 

 

And I do see that you've endorsed change. I'm just responding because you quoted me and didn't want to appear to be ignoring you. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's more in the wording, Chocolate. Of course by saying "accepting" I do not mean anyone has to change his or her beliefs about something. I am just saying we can accept that other people view something as relevant in a certain context even if we don't. When wording seems to be harshly attacking a person though, rather than debating the topic, I don't think anyone benefits. It tends to spiral down into a virtual shouting match and just becomes ugly.

I enjoy a good debate and I like to read varying viewpoints. It's much easier to follow when we don't have personal attacks interspersed with posts addressing the topic.

 

 

It would also be a better debate if people didn't try to insert their pet issues into the middle of the discussion. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But people did flip out in the good old days.  What changed is the weapons available. Who is to say that if high powered rifles, and bump stocks and AR whatevers (forgive my ignorance about guns) were available back then that people wouldn't have used them? 

 

There are plenty of people today who don't run out and shoot a few people. I don't think the difference between how I would deal with my problems and how a shooter deals with them is related to anything other than gun availability. The person who would flip out in 2017 is the one who would have flipped out in 1957 or 67 or 77. He or she just has better weapons now. We have more media access as well as guns that can do more damage. People didn't change. People's access to weapons and instant information changed. 

 

And I do see that you've endorsed change. I'm just responding because you quoted me and didn't want to appear to be ignoring you. 

 

We also had more (for lack of a better term) "socially acceptable" ways for people to take out their anger and rage back in the old days.  I imagine more than a few people who beat slaves, lynched others, murdered Native American women and children, burned black communities, etc. have traits similar to some of our mass shooters.

 

[poppy]

It would make a huge difference to those aborted, if no one else. But, I do think it would make a difference in our society if we valued all lives. I don’t see how it couldn’t.

 

 

Countries that outlaw abortion don't have mass shootings.

But then, other countries that allow abortion don't have mass shootings either.

 

Countries that ban the death penalty don't have mass shootings.

But then, other countries that allow the death penalty don't have mass shootings either.

 

Countries that offer universal health insurance don't have mass shootings.

But then, other countries that don't have universal health insurance  don't have mass shootings either.

 

Just us, here in the USA.

[Liz CA]

Yes! 

 

I mean, I'm sure I could find a way to blame gun violence on rising inequality and the effect of oligarchy on democracy, but I have enough self awareness to know that, yeah, it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. 

 

This man did not kill people because of abortion. He killed people because he was a violent man with access to weapons capable of killing many, partially due to the incompetence of whomever didn't enter his DV conviction. Let's not lose sight of the facts!

 

Yes, I agree that I would not infer any causality. But if I remember correctly, the abortion issue was in answer to a very specific question Tibbie asked and - seemed to me - to be addressing a larger context, more general in scope, relating possibly to God's judgment and spiritual issues. I am thinking we are getting this muddled up a little.

But if the poster meant it differently, please feel free to correct me.

[SKL]

It was known he exchanged gunfire with a private citizen.  It was not known if one of those shots killed him or even if he had been hit.  Today they know that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot to the head and he had two non-fatal shots from the private citizen.  He was not *stopped* by the "good guy with a gun."  In fact, he fled after exchanging gunfire with the private citizen.

 

I read that he called his dad from the car and said he had been hit and didn't think he was going to make it.  I also read that he had a couple guns in his car.  It seems likely that he would have gone and shot some more people but the private citizen's gun made him give up that plan.  So it is very likely the "good guy" saved lives even if his bullets would not have killed the perp.

 

 

Of course it is not certain, but that is not an unusual pattern for a mass murderer - they often leave victims in multiple locations.

Edited November 7, 2017 by SKL

[Miss Peregrine]

I read that he called his dad from the car and said he had been hit and didn't think he was going to make it.  I also read that he had a couple guns in his car.  It seems likely that he would have gone and shot some more people but the private citizen's gun made him give up that plan.  So it is very likely the "good guy" saved lives even if his bullets would not have killed the perp.

 

 

Of course it is not certain, but that is not an unusual pattern for a mass murderer - they often leave victims in multiple locations.

Right. The citizen's shots could very likely have become fatal if he hadn't shot himself. We just don't know.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Very curious about this. 

 

Do people who see a link believe the US is a special case ? Like, literally, seen as such by God ? Or just a Christian nation, subject to greater punishment than the rest of the heathen world ?

 

They don't think about it past the "evil hearts of men/our nation is being punished for not following the Bible so nothing you can do" line of thought.

[mathnerd]

Because not only do we not have a state religion (officially - watch this space), but we also have the problem of not sharing the same God, or even interpreting the same gods the same way.

 

Put bluntly, if some of the gods are letting innocents be slaughtered for the nation's sins, how do we know

 

1. which god(s)

2. what sins

3. how to repent

4. how to appease the god(s)?

 

THAT is a very primitive, pre-civilization form of self-government. It is unacceptable. We are not a theocracy, and we are not all here trying to appease the gods so our children won't die in a hail of gunfire!

 

Thank you for saying this so bluntly. This is America and we all do not owe allegiance to the same God or if we choose to, to not believe in any God. So, to say insistently that we (and the dead innocents in the shootouts) are being judged for sins such as abortions etc makes zero sense to me because of certain belief systems that I hold dear (I will refrain from going into religious discussions so as not to break forum rules). This country is a melting pot of many types of people with many beliefs about God. Even those that believe in a God do not always envision him as judgmental  and ready to mete out "punishment" for "offenses" of society - saying so is offensive to people who do not believe in a God or those who can only think of their god as a compassionate, kind and loving force. So, to tie gun control, abortion, killing of 6 year olds in Sandy Hook etc to religion is not an acceptable point of view to me.

 

Wishful thinking: What this country would benefit from is if a very rich maverick with zero political interests will take on the gun proliferation problem as their personal mission. The reason that I say that he or she needs to be very rich is because that seems to be the only way to not have to pander to vested interests. There are similar efforts already happening in the areas of pollution control, infectious diseases etc. I am done waiting for a political solution to this problem.

[SKL]

So now I'm hearing this guy had run away from a mental institution ... how many times did people have the opportunity - the responsibility - to stop this person before he ever got that gun in his hands in the first place?

 

To me, this is all about people not acting on what they know is right - thinking it's none of their business - until the shit hits the fan.

 

How much of this is going on in this world?

 

 

I think every person who had the responsibility to report this to the gun control registry, and failed to do it, should be criminally liable for these deaths.  And that should be the standard.  What the hell is the point of laws if people like this turd don't make it on the banned list?

 

It's not about "gun culture."  I'll bet a high % of people in that church were hobby gun owners.  Hobby gun owners don't want rotten people toting guns.

 

When a guy drives a car or truck into a crowd, we don't say "ban motor vehicles, it's America's sick car culture that causes violence."   It's obvious that American car owners don't want murderous people, suicidal people, or crazy people driving on our roads - any more than we want murderous, suicidal, or crazy people toting guns.  To some extent we can't predict, but all too often there are red flags that were ignored.  Huge ones in this case.

Edited November 7, 2017 by SKL

[MercyA]

But, what relevance can it possibly have to this discussion?

 

It would also be a better debate if people didn't try to insert their pet issues into the middle of the discussion. 

 

I mean, I'm sure I could find a way to blame gun violence on rising inequality and the effect of oligarchy on democracy, but I have enough self awareness to know that, yeah, it's pretty irrelevant to the discussion. 

 

I don't know how many more times I can say this. Tibbie specifically asked what evil could possibly be occurring today that is as bad as evils in the past that caused hundreds to millions of deaths. I answered. I said there IS something that causes 900,000 deaths every year in our country.

 

You didn't like my answer, and that's fine, but it was entirely relevant to the question she asked. If she wanted it to be a rhetorical question, she should have said so.  ;)

 

I have a lot of pet issues, as do we all. Animal rights, war and peace, racism, abortion. I mentioned the two I could think of that were currently and directly causing hundreds of thousands of human deaths--abortion and the invasion of Iraq. No one seems to have a problem with my second example. 

 

Yes, I agree that I would not infer any causality. But if I remember correctly, the abortion issue was in answer to a very specific question Tibbie asked and - seemed to me - to be addressing a larger context, more general in scope, relating possibly to God's judgment and spiritual issues. I am thinking we are getting this muddled up a little.

But if the poster meant it differently, please feel free to correct me.

 

Yes, I meant it as a theological answer to Tibbie's theological question. 

 

Very curious about this. 

 

Do people who see a link believe the US is a special case ? Like, literally, seen as such by God ? Or just a Christian nation, subject to greater punishment than the rest of the heathen world ?

 

Three no's.

 

They don't think about it past the "evil hearts of men/our nation is being punished for not following the Bible so nothing you can do" line of thought.

 

No one here has said that, and no one thinks it.

Edited November 8, 2017 by MercyA

[goldberry]

So now I'm hearing this guy had run away from a mental institution ... how many times did people have the opportunity - the responsibility - to stop this person before he ever got that gun in his hands in the first place?

 

To me, this is all about people not acting on what they know is right - thinking it's none of their business - until the shit hits the fan.

 

How much of this is going on in this world?

 

 

I think every person who had the responsibility to report this to the gun control registry, and failed to do it, should be criminally liable for these deaths.  And that should be the standard.  What the hell is the point of laws if people like this turd don't make it on the banned list?

 

 

 

How would they have stopped him?  The AF could have, but who else?  Do mental problems disqualify someone, because I thought they don't.  (Should or should not is a different story...)  

 

And I don't think there is a "gun control registry".  That's part of the problem, the info is all over the place.  Don't states have different places they check?  Is it even consistent among states?

 

(I'm saying this because I know of people who had concerns about someone and were told nothing could be done until that person actually did something.)

Edited November 7, 2017 by goldberry

[Halftime Hope]

I disagree. 

 

26 dead is not a success story of good guy stopping bad guy. 

 

Good guy did not stop bad guy; bad guy just ran away.

Bad guy could have kept on shooting others after running away.

ood guy's actions just luckily didn't injure innocent bystanders or add to the confusion and impede law enforcement. It's a fluke. 

 

This is glorifying vigilantism. 

 

When law enforcement and eyewitnesses on the ground say that the men were heroes and that their intervention saved lives, specifically that the neighbor shot the perp, causing him to drop his rifle and run, I'll take that as much more informed and factually correct than the opinion or interpretation of someone not there.  

 

The next best best thing to that is to link you to the testimony of the eye-witness and let him speak:

 

www.ksat.com/news/men-shot-at-chased-after-sutherland-springs-church-shooter

 

That same new station has several eyewitness accounts and statements from local DPS officers.

 

One man's vigilante is another man's good Samaritan...

Edited November 7, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[goldberry]

This was interesting.  Apparently it is an ongoing problem that information is not properly reported to the FBI database, including mental health information.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html

 

This also suggests that military courts have only been submitting the dishonorable discharges and not domestic violence cases.

 

Editing, that of course none of that would stop private sales that don't require FBI background checks.

Edited November 7, 2017 by goldberry

[goldberry]

I found this interesting for those who think only law abiding citizens even submit to background checks, etc.  Apparently the convenience of going into a store and buying a weapon is still attractive enough to lure these people.  So I don't think all of them have an alternative criminal source readily available.  If the private market were subject to background checks as well, that would catch even more at that step.  Why leave open a legal way for people to get guns without a background check?

 

When we looked at why applicants were denied purchase of firearms across the U.S., the most common reason was that the applicant had previously been convicted of a crime. Specifically, persons committing crimes punishable by more than one year in jail or prison, or misdemeanors punishable by more than two years are legally denied access to firearms. Since 1998, more than 730,000 people have been denied by the NICS for their criminal history. The next most common reason for federal denial was that the applicant was a fugitive of justice.

Since the NICS application was instituted, over 160,000 people with warrants out for their arrest have sought to purchase guns.

[Guest]

I think you are on to something here. As a nation in general, America does idolize guns. Religion aside, idolize is simply "admire, revere, or love greatly or excessively," and yeah, America does have that kind of attitude toward guns.

 

I think most religions teach a "reap what you sow" concept. It's certainly not exclusive to Christianity. Call it the Law of Return or whatever, the idea is that whatever actions, energy, thought, focus, etc. you put into something, you will get it back in greater amount.

 

Guns are meant to kill. That's their function. With so much energy being put into guns, is it any wonder that mass shootings are up? It isn't judgment, but it is consequence. The more people use, buy, sell, and deal in firearms, the more violence associated with them will rise.

 

I've been following this thread, and I'm just musing. That's all. I'm not proposing anything, and I don't know how to address the problem. I do agree that there is a problem, though. A very serious one.

 

Talking about it is good. Hopefully, some action will follow! I like TechWife's suggestions. Treat guns more like vehicles with licenses, insurance and regulation. "Well-regulated" indeed!

I think you have struck upon an important point, here. I haven’t thought about this before but - Yes. I have a sticky on my corkboard with the words, “Whatever you think about expands†written upon it. We certainly do put a lot of energy into guns in the USA.

 

Interesting point.

[goldberry]

More info about reporting info to NICS:  Individual states determine what gets reported, some are better at it, some are not.  This link is from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

 

http://www.fixnics.org/factinfo.cfm

 

Congress must rework such a “carrot and stick†approach in a way that can be fully implemented to encourage states to fully participate in NICS. Increasing the number of prohibiting records is the best way to keep prohibited individuals from purchasing firearms, without punishing law-abiding retailers and firearms owners.

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I couldn't disagree more emphatically. On this very thread I am sitting here agreeing with Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics. In my wider circles, there are also Pagans, Heathens, Hindus and Buddhists who agree with me on political and social equality and justice, and on many other issues.

 

And if Emerson was wrong, so what then? Do we come up with a dominant religion and compel others to live under that code? Some are trying. It's called Christian dominionism, and ir influences politics at the highest levels.

 

Indeed I have friends who both agree and disagree with me from each of those groups, and actually from others as well.  (Native American faiths, for example).  However, that does not constitute achieving a moral consensus, which was inherent in the assumption that Emerson expressed.

 

You know very well that I do not and never have subscribed to Christian dominionism.

 

And honestly I am not sure what the alternative is to your two scenarios.  I thought we were getting to one with the Hirsch cultural consensus stuff, but we didn't.  However, the fact that I don't current have an alternative worked out doesn't mean that I buy into either of the ones expressed so far--just that I am currently sitting with a problem that I think is important to bear witness to, without a specific solution in mind just yet.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Trying to wade thru all the abortion chatter....

Need another example of how we can possibly make it more difficult for unfit people to buy firearms? I read this morning some officials are now claiming that he could have been stopped if the Navy had entered his name. However, most of us, sane or insane, can buy as many weapons as we want thru unlicensed dealers( online, at gun shows, etc) without a federal background check. Why not close this loophole? Does anyone want to guess who opposes this?

This loophole is closed in California.  Whether it has made an actual difference is debatable.

And CA is a big state. 

It's pretty common for people who live elsewhere to not entirely grasp how big.

So a common argument is that people can just go across state lines and buy at a gun show and so individual state laws make no difference, but I don't think that that is actually true here because of the distances involved.

[Cindy in FL.]

I don’t believe the US is, or ever was, a Christian nation, a special case, or closer to God’s heart. Nope.

 

Very curious about this.

 

Do people who see a link believe the US is a special case ? Like, literally, seen as such by God ? Or just a Christian nation, subject to greater punishment than the rest of the heathen world ?

[Liz CA]

Trying to wade thru all the abortion chatter....

Need another example of how we can possibly make it more difficult for unfit people to buy firearms? I read this morning some officials are now claiming that he could have been stopped if the Navy had entered his name. However, most of us, sane or insane, can buy as many weapons as we want thru unlicensed dealers( online, at gun shows, etc) without a federal background check. Why not close this loophole? Does anyone want to guess who opposes this?

 

No background checks if you buy at a gun show? Really?  Corporate responsibility versus private owner selling to another individual?

I was not aware of this. Comes back to one of the things that have been suggested here (either by Tech Wife or Murphy) that transfer of ownership should necessitate background checks and registration.

[Liz CA]

This loophole is closed in California.  Whether it has made an actual difference is debatable.

And CA is a big state. 

It's pretty common for people who live elsewhere to not entirely grasp how big.

So a common argument is that people can just go across state lines and buy at a gun show and so individual state laws make no difference, but I don't think that that is actually true here because of the distances involved.

 

Okay, this explains why I was not aware of this since I live in CA. Naturally some will find a way around it.

 

[Aura]

Recently, I sold a vehicle and bought another, both private sales. I had to report both sales to my insurance company so that (1) I wasn't paying insurance on a vehicle that wasn't mine anymore and (2) so we could legally drive the new one. It really wouldn't be that difficult to institute something like that for guns.

 

Pretty sure that's what TechWife was talking about in her earlier post. 

 

WHY are we not doing this already? (rhetorical question)  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

Edited November 7, 2017 by Aura

[Cindy in FL.]

I think people like this gunman have always existed like a pp said. There are certain people who, for whatever reason, are unable or choose not to react to events in their lives in an appropriate manner. Whether it’s a man committing rape because he can’t accept being told no, men and women stalking each other because they feel they have a right to the other person, someone angry about being fired for poor performance at work, etc.

 

You certainly don’t amass guns and ammo so that you can kill and wound scores of people because someone didn’t let you have your own way, said something mean to you, or whatever. Until we no longer have people in our society that can’t make rational appropriate decisions about how to handle the inevitable disappointments of life, then we need to come up with laws that minimize the amount of damage they can do.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[Bootsie]

Recently, I sold a vehicle and bought another, both private sales. I had to report both sales to my insurance company so that (1) I wasn't paying insurance on a vehicle that wasn't mine anymore and (2) so we could legally drive the new one. It really wouldn't be that difficult to institute something like that for guns.

 

Pretty sure that's what TechWife was talking about in her earlier post. 

 

WHY are we not doing this already? (rhetorical question)  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:

 

I am not sure that the automobile example is comparable.  The chances of getting stopped for driving an unregistered vehicle is a real possibility; it varies depending upon the area in which I frequently drive.  An officer can trace my license plates and can look at my window and see if my car is properly registered.  Because a gun is not as frequently visible in public, it would not be as easy to detect unregistered guns.  Also, there are a fair number of people in the area in which I live that drive vehicles that are not properly registered and who drive without a license. 

 

[MercyA]

. 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by MercyA

[HomeAgain]

Right now I would be happy with an ammunition tax, where money went to those who are victims.  Like insurance, but not. Make it high, too.  $50/box would be about right.  And I want a system where every gun sale has to be registered. No more unlicensed dealers.  If you want to sell a weapon, you need to take it down to the police station and have them run the background check on the buyer.  If you buy 30 guns, you should be flagged and put on a watchlist.  If you have a history of DV, you should be banned and have to reapply after a certain number of years with evidence of change.

[Aura]

I am not sure that the automobile example is comparable.  The chances of getting stopped for driving an unregistered vehicle is a real possibility; it varies depending upon the area in which I frequently drive.  An officer can trace my license plates and can look at my window and see if my car is properly registered.  Because a gun is not as frequently visible in public, it would not be as easy to detect unregistered guns.  Also, there are a fair number of people in the area in which I live that drive vehicles that are not properly registered and who drive without a license. 

 

 

You make good points. I know that it's not an exact comparison. However, it's something that could be done.

 

Theoretically, if I sold a gun and removed it from my insurance, that would show in some national database. If it didn't pop up again, then I could easily be contacted to find out who I sold it to and why they haven't registered it themselves.

 

That's the kind of well-regulated sales I'm thinking of. Similar to, but not entirely like, automobiles.

 

And maybe not even every firearm needs to be registered. Maybe only high capacity firearms need to be registered. Maybe single or few shot capacity guns could be exempt. I'm thinking like shotguns and rifles and maybe a very small handgun that only holds six or less bullets. I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud.  

[Bluegoat]

Well, as I understand it, the gunshot loophole is a significant issue, and one that affects Canadians too in places near the border.

 

I am guessing the loophole exists because it was thought not worth it and too difficult to impose on a small group of private sellers - like trying to control flea market sales.  But I think it's actually become a big enough way to sell to be an issue.

 

 

[Cecropia]

How would they have stopped him?  The AF could have, but who else?  Do mental problems disqualify someone, because I thought they don't.  (Should or should not is a different story...)  

 

And I don't think there is a "gun control registry".  That's part of the problem, the info is all over the place.  Don't states have different places they check?  Is it even consistent among states?

 

(I'm saying this because I know of people who had concerns about someone and were told nothing could be done until that person actually did something.)

 

Haven't read this whole thread, but it looks like his info should have been sent to the FBI/NICS if he had been involuntarily committed, and "Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by any person who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective' or involuntarily 'committed to any mental institution.'"

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/mental-health-reporting-in-texas/

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cecropia

[goldberry]

Haven't read this whole thread, but it looks like his info should have been sent to the FBI/NICS if he had been involuntarily committed, and "Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm or ammunition by any person who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective' or involuntarily 'committed to any mental institution.'"

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/mental-health-reporting-in-texas/

 

So actually two things did not get reported in this case, the DV was not reported by the military and his mental health adjudication was not reported.  That took place in New Mexico though.  New Mexico is ranked 34th on this list of how states are doing reporting mental health issues to the NICS.

 

http://fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm

 

Oh, apparently New Mexico didn't even have a law that required reporting until 2016.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/mental-health-reporting-in-new-mexico/

Edited November 8, 2017 by goldberry

[HomeAgain]

So actually two things did not get reported in this case, the DV was not reported by the military and his mental health adjudication was not reported.  That took place in New Mexico though.  New Mexico is ranked 34th on this list of how states are doing reporting mental health issues to the NICS.

 

http://fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm

 

Oh, apparently New Mexico didn't even have a law that required reporting until 2016.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/mental-health-reporting-in-new-mexico/

 

Just because a base is in a state doesn't mean it's on state land. Bases have federal requirements they have to meet, either through military law or federal. 

[Corraleno]

Just because a base is in a state doesn't mean it's on state land. Bases have federal requirements they have to meet, either through military law or federal.

:iagree:

He was in the AF at that time, and they should have been the ones to report it. He was confined to a "behavioral health hospital," while awaiting trail on the DV charges, because he had made death threats against several of his superior officers and was caught trying to smuggle weapons on base to carry out the threats. And yet he was never charged for those actions. 

 

In addition to hitting, kicking, and choking his wife, he also pointed a loaded gun at her head and threatened to kill her — on more than one occasion. But the military dropped all 4 weapons charges in return for him pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault for attacking her and fracturing her son's skull. And then they failed to enter even those (ridiculously minor under the circumstances) charges in the Federal database.

 

So a guy with a serious history of domestic violence, who nearly killed a young child, who beat and threatened to kill his wife, who threatened to kill several military officers and had a plan for carrying it out, ended up with no criminal record and was able to legally buy an assault weapon and all the ammo he wanted.   :banghead:

Edited November 8, 2017 by Corraleno

[Halftime Hope]

Way upthread, I said that many gun owners and LEOs were convinced that a place to start addressing the problem of gun lawlessness is by enforcing the laws *already* on the books. 

 

Someone asked me what that would look like, and I've been trying to find a short, clear explanation of some of the problems that are thwarting the effective enforcement of current laws. (I hear anecdotes, but I didn't want to bore you.) 

 

In the 24 hours since that questions, we've found out that the Murderer (I refuse to mention him by name) 1) was not reported by the military when he should have been on two or three counts, for being a) discharged in less than honorable circumstances, and for b) DV charges, and c) for incarceration.  Both or all three of those are no brainers, and if not already quite clearly spelled out in reporting to the federal DB, they would be very minor legislative tweaks that a majority of Americans could easily agree to. 

 

We've also found out that 2) he was in a mental institution, and that should have flagged him in the National Database so that when he attempted to purchase a firearm and underwent a background check, his application would have been denied. 

 

Both of these are examples of failures of enforcement or compliance on an institutional level, not law-breaking at an individual level.  These areas should be cleaned up and are something absolutely worth lobbying our legislators about, at all levels of government (local, state, federal).

 

There are a boatload of additional examples of failure to properly implement and enforce laws listed in the article linked below.  If lawmakers started with the things mentioned in this article, it would go a long way.  I may be wrong, but it seems like most of the shootings in the news in the recent months have been ones that people had a clue about, and in which, upon closer examination, a ball was dropped that allowed the perps to obtain weapons when they should not have been able to.  The notable exception to that is the Las Vegas massacre.

 

https://www.trace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nic-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-shurch-shooting

Edited November 8, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Halftime Hope]

:iagree:

He was in the AF at that time, and they should have been the ones to report it. He was confined to a "behavioral health hospital," while awaiting trail on the DV charges, because he had made death threats against several of his superior officers and was caught trying to smuggle weapons on base to carry out the threats. And yet he was never charged for those actions. 

 

In addition to hitting, kicking, and choking his wife, he also pointed a loaded gun at her head and threatened to kill her — on more than one occasion. But the military dropped all 4 weapons charges in return for him pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault for attacking her and fracturing her son's skull. And then they failed to enter even those (ridiculously minor under the circumstances) charges in the Federal database.

 

So a guy with a serious history of domestic violence, who nearly killed a young child, who beat and threatened to kill his wife, who threatened to kill several military officers and had a plan for carrying it out, ended up with no criminal record and was able to legally buy an assault weapon and all the ammo he wanted.   :banghead:

 

You are dead right.  And I can't possibly like your post.

 

[Ausmumof3]

Changing cultural attitudes toward domestic violence may be one area to look at. I'm guessing of course . It may have been an administrative error but it's hard to know.

[goldberry]

:iagree:

He was in the AF at that time, and they should have been the ones to report it. He was confined to a "behavioral health hospital," while awaiting trail on the DV charges, because he had made death threats against several of his superior officers and was caught trying to smuggle weapons on base to carry out the threats. And yet he was never charged for those actions. 

 

I see what you're saying, the AF was the authority confining him to the hospital, so they should have been the ones to report it.

 

The only positive outcome this may have is that hopefully all three military branches will get on the ball with this from now on.

[goldberry]

 

We've also found out that 2) he was in a mental institution, and that should have flagged him in the National Database so that when he attempted to purchase a firearm and underwent a background check, his application would have been denied. 

 

Both of these are examples of failures of enforcement or compliance on an institutional level, not law-breaking at an individual level.  These areas should be cleaned and are something absolutely worth lobbying our legislators about, at all levels of government.

 

I agree with what you're saying, but he still did break the law individually by denying he had any disqualifying events.  Otherwise I agree with what you are saying.  

 

Outside of the military, states have authority what they report, whether they require reporting or just "authorize" reporting, especially re: mental illness, and how much enforcement is behind it.  Checking out our own state is a good step.  

 

1. States where disclosure to NICS is authorized, but not required: The following states’ laws explicitly authorize, but do not require, reporting to NICS:85
2. Colorado

   Florida

   Nebraska

   Missouri

   Pennsylvania

   West Virginia

 

1. States that collect mental health records but do not address disclosure to NICS: The following states’ laws acknowledge that they collect mental health records for use in firearm purchaser background checks, although these laws do not address disclosure to NICS:

   Arkansas

   Michigan

   Ohio

   Utah

Edited November 8, 2017 by goldberry

[maize]

I agree with what you're saying, but he still did break the law individually by denying he had any disqualifying events. Otherwise I agree with what you are saying.

 

 

 

 

Well yeah, he also broke the law by murdering people...

 

We definitely cannot rely on self reporting for this kind of thing. A person planning murder is unlikely to care over much about filling out a form honestly.

Edited November 8, 2017 by maize

[maize]

So I think a 30 day waiting period from time of application for any gun purchase would be reasonable. And a six month waiting period between purchases.

 

And registration of private sales, which must comply with the same regulations as retail sales.

[Halftime Hope]

Right now I would be happy with an ammunition tax, where money went to those who are victims.  Like insurance, but not. Make it high, too.  $50/box would be about right. 

 

Whee!  Let's start the ammo tax right after you enact a alcohol tax of $50/bottle or $50/case of beer, shall we?  The money could go to victims of DUI and of other alcohol-connected crimes!  And be sure to tax all alcohol, so that someone who is really poor and lives in a high crime area could no longer afford to "enjoy a cold one", after all, it's just a discretionary item, not potentially life-saving like....a box of ammo.

 

And I want a system where every gun sale has to be registered. Nope, just no.  No more than is currently in place.     No more unlicensed dealers.  (See next item below.)

 

If you want to sell a weapon, you need to take it down to the police station and have them run the background check on the buyer.  Note:  no need to burden the police.  Firearms can be transferred through an FFL, even if you are not buying from or selling to them, so that they will conduct the proper background check on the buyer.  Many private gun sellers already do this as a precaution, because they like to sleep at night. 

 

If you buy 30 guns, you should be flagged and put on a watchlist.  Should we revisit the alcohol analogy?  Because I don't understand alcohol, I think you should be on a watch list if you think 30 varieties are needed to make a well-rounded wine collection.  That must make you a wine nut, unhealthily obsessed with wine or liquor and surely prone to abusing it and others.

 

If you have a history of DV, you should be banned and have to reapply after a certain number of years with evidence of change.    Yes, this I absolutely agree with.  No argument from me.

 

 

[HeartString]

 

[*]States where disclosure to NICS is authorized, but not required: The following states’ laws explicitly authorize, but do not require, reporting to NICS:85

[*]Colorado

Florida

Nebraska

Missouri

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

• States that collect mental health records but do not address disclosure to NICS: The following states’ laws acknowledge that they collect mental health records for use in firearm purchaser background checks, although these laws do not address disclosure to NICS:

  Arkansas

  Michigan

  Ohio

  Utah

I hope I quoted properly. Making this reporting mandatory is a law that would have helped in this instance. That would just be a tweak to a current law.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

You do know alcohol is already heavily taxed, right?

[Halftime Hope]

You do know alcohol is already heavily taxed, right?

 

Not at $50/bottle for the purpose of making it unaffordable, as a means of alcohol control (ahem) compensating victims.

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[TechWife]

I don't see a need for allowing gun sales to occur at gun shows. Just like any other convention, manufacturers or retailers could set up booths with sample products and be ready to talk about all of their products to whoever comes by. Manufacturers could provide a list of retailers in the potential customers area and the retailers could provide business cards or brochures with contact information on them. Same thing for private collectors wishing to sell part of their collection - photos, even the weapon could be present at the show, but the sale is not completed on site. They can meet up later to follow proper procedures to do background checks, register the sale, etc. No one should be able to buy a weapon on impulse. 

[Corraleno]

In the 24 hours since that questions, we've found out that 1) The Murderer (I refuse to mention him by name) was not reported by the military when he should have been on two or three counts, for being a) discharged in less than honorable circumstances, and for b) DV charges and c) for incarceration.  Both or all three of those are no brainers, and if not already quite clearly spelled out in reporting to the federal DB, they would be very minor legislative tweaks that a majority of Americans could easily agree to. 

 

We've also found out that 2) he was in a mental institution, and that should have flagged him in the National Database so that when he attempted to purchase a firearm and underwent a background check, his application would have been denied. 

 

Both of these are examples of failures of enforcement or compliance on an institutional level, not law-breaking at an individual level.  These areas should be cleaned and are something absolutely worth lobbying our legislators about, at all levels of government.

 

It's more than just a failure to report. Only a dishonorable discharge disqualifies a person from owning weapons — a bad conduct discharge doesn't count. So one level of failure, IMO, is that someone who threatened to kill multiple people and nearly killed a toddler ended up not getting a dishonorable discharge, and only being charged with misdemeanors. And the rule about incarceration is that it's for "more than 1 year" or for a felony; since he was sentenced to 1 year (not more) for misdemeanors, that rule didn't apply to him. The one rule that did, the DV charge, wasn't entered in the database, but if he had been charged with a felony and given a dishonorable discharge — which seems warranted for such egregious offenses — then that would have automatically shown up.

 

The part about the "mental institution" is still unclear. The "behavioral hospital" he was in had a separate program for active duty military, and he may have just been there for observation or evaluation; there's not a lot of detail in the news reports. It may be a gray area whether his presence there would have legally counted as "commitment to a mental institution" since he was under arrest and still in military custody at the time.

 

IMO the criteria for "disqualifying offenses" are too vague, too lenient, and too prone to human error. 

 

Outside of the military, states have authority what they report, whether they require reporting or just "authorize" reporting, especially re: mental illness, and how much enforcement is behind it.  Checking out our own state is a good step.

• States where disclosure to NICS is authorized, but not required: The following states’ laws explicitly authorize, but do not require, reporting to NICS:85
• Colorado

  Florida

  Nebraska

  Missouri

  Pennsylvania

  West Virginia

• States that collect mental health records but do not address disclosure to NICS: The following states’ laws acknowledge that they collect mental health records for use in firearm purchaser background checks, although these laws do not address disclosure to NICS:

  Arkansas

  Michigan

  Ohio

  Utah

Unfortunately, Congress is going in the opposite direction when it comes to disclosure of mental illness in regard to weapon sales. In February, they repealed a law that had established a database for people who were on disability due to mental illness or who required guardians to manage their affairs. One would think that someone whose mental illness is so disabling that they cannot work or manage their own affairs would not be a good candidate for gun ownership, but the NRA argued that the previous law "deprived the mentally ill of their 2nd Amendment rights."

[TechWife]

Not at $50/bottle for the purpose of compensating the victims. 

 

 

But, hey, if we used the tax to compensate victims of drunk driving accidents, to provide addiction recovery programs, ongoing counseling for addict and their family member who have been affected by the excessive behavior, that tax begins to look like a bargain, doesn't it? It would also go a long way to curb alcohol abuse because there would be many people who would be unwilling or unable to purchase large amounts of alcohol. Having grown up in a home with an alcoholic and having lost my brother to liver cirrhosis, I'm okay with that. Whatever works.