Mass shooting in Maine

[Faith-manor]

31 minutes ago, Starr said:

Add me in to the once removed list of people who know someone who died in this terrible shooting. Tragic 

Many hugs. I am so sorry.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

The new details coming out about the shooter’s history illustrate the problem with having yellow flag laws versus red flag laws. His ex wife and son reported concerns to the police at the beginning of the year including that he was collecting guns at the house. Other family members contacted police after that and said they would try to secure the weapons. Police finally tried making contact in July but were unable to. It doesn’t appear there’s anything in the law that allows them to do anything beyond that. They would have had to be able to take him into custody in order to pursue the yellow flag route. With red flag laws, the calls back in May from his ex-wife could have allowed them to collect his weapons.

Police Were Told Maine Gunman Had Threatened to Carry Out Shooting Spree

It seems like everyone did what they legally could.  The laws are just insufficient.   

[Eos]

7 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

It seems like everyone did what they legally could.  The laws are just insufficient.   

I'm unsure.  I mean, yes, I agree that the laws are insufficient but from what I'm reading they did try to contact him multiple times and gave up, even as they were being told by family member that his psychosis was escalating.  Amongst other attempts, in September LE knocked at his door when his car was in the yard but he didn't come to the door so they left.  

The person who refused to give him a silencer that he had bought online after he truthfully checked the mental health infirmity box is to be commended.

This side of the story is just tragic.  His family tried so hard.

Gifted: https://wapo.st/3MoRed7

Edited October 31, 2023 by Eos

[MEmama]

9 hours ago, Starr said:

Add me in to the once removed list of people who know someone who died in this terrible shooting. Tragic 

💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔

@Starr, I'm so sorry. Feel free to message me if you want to vent/cry/process. 

[MEmama]

1 hour ago, Eos said:

I'm unsure.  I mean, yes, I agree that the laws are insufficient but from what I'm reading they did try to contact him multiple times and gave up, even as they were being told by family member that his psychosis was escalating.  Amongst other attempts, in September LE knocked at his door when his car was in the yard but he didn't come to the door so they left.  

The person who refused to give him a silencer that he had bought online after he truthfully checked the mental health infirmity box is to be commended.

This side of the story is just tragic.  His family tried so hard.

Gifted: https://wapo.st/3MoRed7

I've read the same, that they tried to contact him both in May and September. But knocking on a door once and then dropping the matter isn't sufficient. "Welp, we couldn't find him, whatcha gonna do 🤷‍♀️" doesn't fly in todays world. He had a cell phone--did they track him? Was the FBI contacted? Did they clue in the state police vs small town sheriffs department with understandably limited resources? What else did they try besides a quick stopover at an empty house?

What about the Army? He was a reservist and they knew because they committed him for a couple weeks (voluntarily). What did they do after his release? 2 weeks in a mental hospital doesn't cure schizophrenia or mania. They know this, and presumably did nothing further.

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by MEmama

[MEmama]

1 hour ago, Eos said:

His family tried so hard.

Yes, from all accounts they did everything right. I don't think many of us can begin to understand how heart wrenching that must have been for them, to turn in your own son/father/loved one. 
 

I'm thankful the community seems to be embracing them and offering all the supports. How easy it would be to turn their back on those who need help the most, but that doesn't seem to be happening thank goodness.

His poor son 😞 

[Kassia]

@Starr  I'm so sorry.  

[Heartstrings]

3 hours ago, Eos said:

but from what I'm reading they did try to contact him multiple times and gave up,

The way I read that was they gave up because there wasn’t much they could do anyway.  There was no legal force allowing them to do anything.  They could only really ask him to voluntarily give up his weapons or arrest him to start a legal process to remove them, but you can’t arrest someone just for being crazy.  He hadn’t done anything illegal up to that point. 
That’s why the laws were insufficient.  Everyone involved could see how it was going but no one could legally intervene.  If Maine had had a Red Flag law the family could have legally gotten the police to remove his weapons before he committed the crime, on the basis of his psychosis. But the law in Maine doesn’t allow for that.  
 

ETA:   It does seem like everyone tried really hard, as much as the law allowed them to.  The cops tried, the army tried, the family put a lot of effort in and tried really hard.   The law failed.  The law was insufficient to help even with so many people trying so hard.   

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[fairfarmhand]

3 hours ago, Eos said:

I'm unsure.  I mean, yes, I agree that the laws are insufficient but from what I'm reading they did try to contact him multiple times and gave up, even as they were being told by family member that his psychosis was escalating.  Amongst other attempts, in September LE knocked at his door when his car was in the yard but he didn't come to the door so they left.  

The person who refused to give him a silencer that he had bought online after he truthfully checked the mental health infirmity box is to be commended.

This side of the story is just tragic.  His family tried so hard.

Gifted: https://wapo.st/3MoRed7

The process for buying a silencer (suppressor) is heavily regulated. IT goes like this: You buy the silencer, the dealer gets it and keeps it in a vault while your federal paperwork is processed. You have to have a license to have one. It is expensive and takes 6-8 months to get the results of your paperwork and be licensed. When the dealer gets the approval, you can get your silencer from them. In this case, the licensing process worked. 

My dh and I were talking about this last night. Why can't the handgun process work this way? 

On its own, a silencer does nothing. It's a tube of metal. Unless you Pair it with a gun you have nothing. Why not actually regulate the dangerous part of the firearm? I mean, I get why they regulate the silencers, because there are SO many guns available, but it seems silly to regulate one and not the other.

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

My dh and I were talking about this last night. Why can't the handgun process work this way? 

The process for buying an AR should be like that for sure.  

[Pam in CT]

re distinction between yellow vs red flag legislation...

There is a yawning difference between LE being *able* to *inform* a person who has been under protective custody and been referred to them by medical professionals that they're not *allowed* to have a firearm for 15+ days

vs

LE having the legal authority and practical enforcement tools to *search for and confiscate and retain* firearms in such circumstances.

 

It gets back to the difference between what common sense suggests "should" be the case, and the weedy wonky specifics of actual law.

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

The process for buying a silencer (suppressor) is heavily regulated. IT goes like this: You buy the silencer, the dealer gets it and keeps it in a vault while your federal paperwork is processed. You have to have a license to have one. It is expensive and takes 6-8 months to get the results of your paperwork and be licensed. When the dealer gets the approval, you can get your silencer from them. In this case, the licensing process worked. 

My dh and I were talking about this last night. Why can't the handgun process work this way? 

On its own, a silencer does nothing. It's a tube of metal. Unless you Pair it with a gun you have nothing. Why not actually regulate the dangerous part of the firearm? I mean, I get why they regulate the silencers, because there are SO many guns available, but it seems silly to regulate one and not the other.

Right. The thing they are acknowledging with the silencer is that the only reason to own a silencer is to kill someone without anyone hearing the shot. They know that the motivation to own a silencer is 9 times out of 10, bad. But what they refuse to acknowledge is the same thing about assault rifles. The reality is that the AR15 exists for killing humans. That is it. It is an instrument designed by the military for the purpose of mowing down the enemy. But if they put the same process in place to own an AR15 as they do for a silencer, they would be acknowledging this, and well, NRA money is very lucrative.

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

gets back to the difference between what common sense suggests "should" be the case, and the weedy wonky specifics of actual law.

It also points to what people assume the law is or allows and what the law actually permits.  People assume the laws are much stronger than they actually are. 

[Pam in CT]

re limitations on federal power

9 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

The process for buying a silencer (suppressor) is heavily regulated. IT goes like this: You buy the silencer, the dealer gets it and keeps it in a vault while your federal paperwork is processed. You have to have a license to have one. It is expensive and takes 6-8 months to get the results of your paperwork and be licensed. When the dealer gets the approval, you can get your silencer from them. In this case, the licensing process worked. 

My dh and I were talking about this last night. Why can't the handgun process work this way? 

On its own, a silencer does nothing. It's a tube of metal. Unless you Pair it with a gun you have nothing. Why not actually regulate the dangerous part of the firearm? I mean, I get why they regulate the silencers, because there are SO many guns available, but it seems silly to regulate one and not the other.

It does seem silly, but even the most avid "originalists" struggle to locate a "right" to a silencer in the Constitution.

Thus federal legislation on ancillary innovations like silencers and bump stocks is (somewhat) better able to withstand judicial scrutiny.  

[fairfarmhand]

11 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Right. The thing they are acknowledging with the silencer is that the only reason to own a silencer is to kill someone without anyone hearing the shot. They know that the motivation to own a silencer is 9 times out of 10, bad. But what they refuse to acknowledge is the same thing about assault rifles. The reality is that the AR15 exists for killing humans. That is it. It is an instrument designed by the military for the purpose of mowing down the enemy. But if they put the same process in place to own an AR15 as they do for a silencer, they would be acknowledging this, and well, NRA money is very lucrative.

We own one because we want to shoot coyotes without freaking out the neighbors. But overall, yes. Likely.

[fairfarmhand]

We are a family that owns many guns for various reasons (most of which have nothing to do with actually shooting a person). My frustration is that unless gun owners and the NRA is that if gun owners don't give a little bit in the realm of regulation, these things will keep happening, and I fear that those who are on the fence about such things and those who are very much anti guns will end up putting harsh regulations on law abiding, normal, ordinary gun owners. 

We regulate freaking cold meds. Guns are already somewhat regulated. And more common sense regulations are definitely needed. 

[Heartstrings]

10 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

My frustration is that unless gun owners and the NRA is that if gun owners don't give a little bit in the realm of regulation, these things will keep happening, and I fear that those who are on the fence about such things and those who are very much anti guns will end up putting harsh regulations on law abiding, normal, ordinary gun owners.

I can verify that attitude shift.   I’ve never cared for guns, but my husband has several and is into gun stuff. After one of the school shootings he went from Pro Gun Rights to saying that he would happily turn them all in if it meant kids would stop being killed in schools.  He’s much more pro gun regulations, as more and more shootings happen.  It seems like a natural response to constant death.  

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[denarii]

4 hours ago, Eos said:

The person who refused to give him a silencer that he had bought online after he truthfully checked the mental health infirmity box is to be commended.

And if he'd lied on the form? I'm not trying to be snarky. As a Canadian I'm trying to understand the rationale that we just trust people to self incriminate themselves as a means of gun control. 

Is there a mechanism to confirm the information provided is accurate BEFORE someone could buy a silencer?

[Faith-manor]

51 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

We own one because we want to shoot coyotes without freaking out the neighbors. But overall, yes. Likely.

Right. And I would imagine that if they were heavily regulated it would be possible to have common sense protections like this, especially for livestock farmers. I know wild dogs and pack hunting is a major problem. But we can have something like this where there are enough hoops to jump that a person proves they have the need and are fit to own like gun safes with combinations finger print trigger locks, something like that, and a recheck every couple of years to make sure the person hasn't done anything that would disqualify them from continued ownership.

The problem is we have leadership that doesn't give a rat's rear and wouldn't know common sense if it smacked them dead in the face.

[MEmama]

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

The problem is we have leadership that doesn't give a rat's rear and wouldn't know common sense if it smacked them dead in the face.

Worse, they are ANTI common sense--ie, in their opinion, being "woke". 
 And that's all I say here (hopefully 😉 )

[Heartstrings]

15 minutes ago, denarii said:

And if he'd lied on the form? I'm not trying to be snarky. As a Canadian I'm trying to understand the rationale that we just trust people to self incriminate themselves as a means of gun control. 

Is there a mechanism to confirm the information provided is accurate BEFORE someone could buy a silencer?

This is another place where most people would think that, yes, of course he would have been caught if he lied, but its often, probably usually, not true.  It's true if his stay in the hospital was reported to the FBI database by the state, in a timely fashion.  A lot of that goes unreported though.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/06/16/gun-checks-mental-health-records-can-still-blind-spot/7582379001/

And if the FBI check comes back fast enough.  That's a loophole that most people don't know about.  The FBI background has to come back within 3 days or the gun seller has to go ahead with the sale without it. That's a loophole that  "common sense" gun regulation people want closed.  The NRA says it's needed to encourage the FBI to move quickly.  

https://www.everytown.org/solutions/close-the-charleston-loophole/

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[MEmama]

2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

This is another place where most people would think that, yes, of course he would have been caught if he lied, but its often, probably usually, not true.  It's true if his stay in the hospital was reported to the FBI database by the state, in a timely fashion.  A lot of that goes unreported though.  

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/06/16/gun-checks-mental-health-records-can-still-blind-spot/7582379001/

I've read he was in the hospital in West Point--how much more federal do we have to get! (Anger not directed at you!)

And no, I don't want to hear excuses about the military. Our entire system is *intentionally* broken.

Voting is November 7.

[pinball]

It’s illegal to threaten to “shoot up” anywhere. He made threats to shoot up the armory where his unit met. That’s a felony. Which means, he should have been arrested.

The agencies are covering their asses. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

But keep telling yourselves everyone did all they could. 
 

 

[Vintage81]

54 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

This is another place where most people would think that, yes, of course he would have been caught if he lied, but its often, probably usually, not true.  It's true if his stay in the hospital was reported to the FBI database by the state, in a timely fashion.  A lot of that goes unreported though.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/06/16/gun-checks-mental-health-records-can-still-blind-spot/7582379001/

And if the FBI check comes back fast enough.  That's a loophole that most people don't know about.  The FBI background has to come back within 3 days or the gun seller has to go ahead with the sale without it. That's a loophole that  "common sense" gun regulation people want closed.  The NRA says it's needed to encourage the FBI to move quickly.  

https://www.everytown.org/solutions/close-the-charleston-loophole/

 

 

Just to clarify....suppressors/silencers take much longer to purchase than normal firearms. The purchase is done through an approved dealer and then the approval process is done through the ATF. This can take up to 9 months depending on their wait times. It is a much more in-depth process than a firearm purchase. 

In case anyone is curious, here's an article on the steps involved...

https://silencerco.com/blog/how-to-buy-suppressor-guide

My FIL has one (again, because he lives on a farm) and it took about 6 months from the time he purchased it for him to receive it. 

I don't know if the background checks are handled any differently, but I just wanted to clarify that the process was different/longer to even purchase one. 

ETA...Sorry!!! I totally missed the post above. You can disregard my repeated information. 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Vintage81

[Heartstrings]

12 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

Just to clarify....suppressors/silencers take much longer to purchase than normal firearms. The purchase is done through an approved dealer and then the approval process is done through the ATF. This can take up to 9 months depending on their wait times. It is a much more in-depth process than a firearm purchase. 

In case anyone is curious, here's an article on the steps involved...

https://silencerco.com/blog/how-to-buy-suppressor-guide

My FIL has one (again, because he lives on a farm) and it took about 6 months from the time he purchased it for him to receive it. 

I don't know if the background checks are handled any differently, but I just wanted to clarify that the process was different/longer to even purchase one. 

I was talking strictly about guns.  Guns are much easier to get than silencers.  We’ve walked in to buy a handgun and walked out with one 30 minutes later, because we both have squeaky clean backgrounds and the check comes back nearly instantly.  
 

Of course that’s only from a store.  People literally sell guns at yard sales here with out any sort of requirement to do a background check.  I’m in the south, it’s harder to buy alcohol.  My state requires no license, no registration, nothing,  

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Grace Hopper]

4 hours ago, MEmama said:

I've read the same, that they tried to contact him both in May and September. But knocking on a door once and then dropping the matter isn't sufficient. "Welp, we couldn't find him, whatcha gonna do 🤷‍♀️" doesn't fly in todays world. He had a cell phone--did they track him? Was the FBI contacted? Did they clue in the state police vs small town sheriffs department with understandably limited resources? What else did they try besides a quick stopover at an empty house?

What about the Army? He was a reservist and they knew because they committed him for a couple weeks (voluntarily). What did they do after his release? 2 weeks in a mental hospital doesn't cure schizophrenia or mania. They know this, and presumably did nothing further.

 

 

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re distinction between yellow vs red flag legislation...

There is a yawning difference between LE being *able* to *inform* a person who has been under protective custody and been referred to them by medical professionals that they're not *allowed* to have a firearm for 15+ days

vs

LE having the legal authority and practical enforcement tools to *search for and confiscate and retain* firearms in such circumstances.

 

It gets back to the difference between what common sense suggests "should" be the case, and the weedy wonky specifics of actual law.

The thing I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around is that the military didn’t have more power to flag this guy in some way. That’s a level of authority above just thinking your neighbor is odd and possibly unstable, kwim? 

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Right. The thing they are acknowledging with the silencer is that the only reason to own a silencer is to kill someone without anyone hearing the shot. They know that the motivation to own a silencer is 9 times out of 10, bad. But what they refuse to acknowledge is the same thing about assault rifles. The reality is that the AR15 exists for killing humans. That is it. It is an instrument designed by the military for the purpose of mowing down the enemy. But if they put the same process in place to own an AR15 as they do for a silencer, they would be acknowledging this, and well, NRA money is very lucrative.

There is one non-military situation I can think of where an AR15 might be allowed, and that is for culling herds of wild boar. But even then, I believe they should only be wielded by trained active duty wildlife agents, not average Joe landowners. 

[Vintage81]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

I was talking strictly about guns.  Guns are much easier to get than silencers.  We’ve walked in to buy a handgun and walked out with one 30 minutes later, because we both have squeaky clean backgrounds and the check comes back nearly instantly.  Federally the longest they can hold the gun is 3 days, and that’s only if the background check takes that long. Of course that’s only from a store.  People literally sell guns at yard sales with out any sort of requirement to do a background check.  I’m in the south, it’s harder to buy alcohol.  My state requires no license, no registration, nothing,  

You were replying to the silencer question, which is why I was clarifying. However, I totally missed the post earlier with similar information. 🤦‍♀️ I need more caffeine today! 

I live in Texas and my DH has many guns, so I'm aware of how easy the gun buying process can be. I've stood in the store and waited! 😜 I just wanted to clarify that one piece of info. Sorry!

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

The thing I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around is that the military didn’t have more power to flag this guy in some way. That’s a level of authority above just thinking your neighbor is odd and possibly unstable, kwim?

I think it would have been different if he lived on base.  They have more authority there.  But in his own home, off base, I don't think the army has the ability just to take his guns. 

[Heartstrings]

15 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

You were replying to the silencer question, which is why I was clarifying. However, I totally missed the post earlier with similar information. 🤦‍♀️ I need more caffeine today! 

I live in Texas and my DH has many guns, so I'm aware of how easy the gun buying process can be. I've stood in the store and waited! 😜 I just wanted to clarify that one piece of info. Sorry!

I think I responded before you edited your post.  No problem!  
 

I think I slightly misread the question I was replying to anyway. 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[pinball]

58 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think it would have been different if he lived on base.  They have more authority there.  But in his own home, off base, I don't think the army has the ability just to take his guns. 

Familiarize yourself with the UCMJ.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

I can verify that attitude shift.   I’ve never cared for guns, but my husband has several and is into gun stuff. After one of the school shootings he went from Pro Gun Rights to saying that he would happily turn them all in if it meant kids would stop being killed in schools.  He’s much more pro gun regulations, as more and more shootings happen.  It seems like a natural response to constant death.  

I’ve seen the same shift in my dh. He grew up in a gun owning family and shot them as a kid. He’s for common sense laws, but more and more he’s like, fine, if people aren’t willing to compromise with common sense regulations then forget it. Just take them away altogether because it’s insane to put up with this much death as the cost of people owning their guns. 

1 hour ago, pinball said:

It’s illegal to threaten to “shoot up” anywhere. He made threats to shoot up the armory where his unit met. That’s a felony. Which means, he should have been arrested.

The agencies are covering their asses. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

But keep telling yourselves everyone did all they could. 
 

 

The threat he made to shoot up the base may or may not have been made in a way that would have risen to a level that allowed them to arrest him. It’s hard to say based on the very general information we have about it. I wish they would have arrested him and don’t know if they have a reason they couldn’t or not. I do know that with red flag laws, his family could have had his guns removed, so I wish for that just as much (particularly because the yellow flag process is more difficult and may not have succeeded even if they arrested him). Basically, I wish one way or the other, this guy hadn’t had any access to guns. 

53 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think it would have been different if he lived on base.  They have more authority there.  But in his own home, off base, I don't think the army has the ability just to take his guns. 

The army has said he didn’t have any weapons issued by them (hard to tell if they meant he used to and they had taken them back or if they were never issued). So, agreeing with you that it doesn’t seem they could have taken his personal weapons stored on family property. 

[Heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, KSera said:

The threat he made to shoot up the base may or may not have been made in a way that would have risen to a level that allowed them to arrest him.

Given his hospital stay I doubt a prosecutor would have taken the case, it would be too easy for him to claim temporary insanity.  So he would plead it down to some misdemeanor. He  likely would have committed this crime in the mean time, prosecutions take time.  And they don’t take your weapons while you wait for trial either.  
After a felony conviction the cops still don’t come search and cease the weapons.   You are told you aren’t allowed to have them and get prosecuted *if* you are caught with them, but they don’t randomly come do inspections.  It’s an honor system mostly.  

Edited October 31, 2023 by Heartstrings

[pinball]

33 minutes ago, KSera said:

The threat he made to shoot up the base may or may not have been made in a way that would have risen to a level that allowed them to arrest him. It’s

Right! It was one of those friendly non-threatening threats.

[mommyoffive]

17 hours ago, Starr said:

Add me in to the once removed list of people who know someone who died in this terrible shooting. Tragic 

I am so sorry that this is close to home for you.  Lots of prayers sent to you.

[mommyoffive]

7 hours ago, MEmama said:

Yes, from all accounts they did everything right. I don't think many of us can begin to understand how heart wrenching that must have been for them, to turn in your own son/father/loved one. 
 

I'm thankful the community seems to be embracing them and offering all the supports. How easy it would be to turn their back on those who need help the most, but that doesn't seem to be happening thank goodness.

His poor son 😞 

That is so good to hear about your community.  Thanks for posting it.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, pinball said:

Right! It was one of those friendly non-threatening threats.

I don’t know the reason for being flip about this. It just doesn’t work as straight forwardly as you might think. Not every threat meets the criteria required for arrest and prosecution. There  are a number of criteria that must be met. I haven’t seen anything reported on the threat that would give anyone without more details enough information to have any idea whether it met the criteria. Maybe it did. Or maybe it didn’t. The point is, we don’t know. But can we agree it’s tragic that there were no laws in place to allow action based on his mental health and concerns expressly made to authorities by his family?

[Laura Corin]

After reading this thread I came across an account of what happened to a disgraced UK politician who was also a farmer and gun owner-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c4860f74-ac4b-4750-abcd-36a4e32645a9?shareToken=fb69654deaed4f1ff3415edc19ee69fd

"I went to a very dark place. The police came and took away my guns for my own safety. I joked that I was a bad shot, but I’d got very depressed.” His party deserted him immediately, he says. “That’s where they need to learn a few lessons — I was a zombie to them. It was the police who checked up on me four or five times, and the other farmers.”

[pinball]

22 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don’t know the reason for being flip about this. It just doesn’t work as straight forwardly as you might think. Not every threat meets the criteria required for arrest and prosecution. There  are a number of criteria that must be met. I haven’t seen anything reported on the threat that would give anyone without more details enough information to have any idea whether it met the criteria. Maybe it did. Or maybe it didn’t. The point is, we don’t know. But can we agree it’s tragic that there were no laws in place to allow action based on his mental health and concerns expressly made to authorities by his

Edited October 31, 2023 by desertflower
Let’s be civil toward one another

[pinball]

That has to be a record!

12 minutes to get reported, a mod to react and deleted!

WTG, reporter! ❤️❤️❤️

I guess if my post was pro-terrorism, it’d be here forever!

😂😂😂

[Dmmetler]

6 hours ago, Grace Hopper said:

 

The thing I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around is that the military didn’t have more power to flag this guy in some way. That’s a level of authority above just thinking your neighbor is odd and possibly unstable, kwim? 

There is one non-military situation I can think of where an AR15 might be allowed, and that is for culling herds of wild boar. But even then, I believe they should only be wielded by trained active duty wildlife agents, not average Joe landowners. 

At least in TN, TWRA is law enforcement and has high firearm training requirements. Based on what I've heard from the non-game agents at Herp meetings, they tend to take it very  seriously-many LEO's never have to fire a weapon outside of training, but game and non-game agents often do, because hunters leave a lot of badly injured and very, very unhappy animals behind-and an enraged, hurting buck both needs to be taken down without causing it additional pain, and because of the need to cull wildlife populations and remove invasives. And, well, they also catch a lot of illegal activity, and those folks don't hesitate to shoot, either.