The Texas School Shooting

[Beachbummer]

How would anyone know that this 18 year old was disturbed and should be stripped of his constitutional rights before he did anything wrong? He was never adjudicated to be mentally deficient, or even had a mental health history that has been publicly disclosed, nor was he a criminal. Its obvious now that he should have been fired off into the sun at the earliest opportunity, but how would you have stopped that from happening before he made it known what he was?

That's the point of the suggestion. Can't you think of some red flags or mechanism we could put in place that when people of trust around a kid 17 years old think" this kid having a weapon with his criminal and violent tendencies and outburst, although have not resulted yet in criminal prosecution is just a bad idea... No way he should have a gun, he's probably going to fire on a bunch of kids in a school. Let me call the likely a gunman line to make sure they know what's going on. 711 crime prevention line.

And if you get 3 of those maybe there's some extra cash to go talk to the guy and add a restriction in need or interview/greater scrutiny before gun purchase?

I'm not saying it's the ultimate fix, or even the right fix, but I think if we stretched our imagination we could probably come up with improvement. That's the take away for me, it should not be between doing nothing or doing something, it should be, what's the next incremental change we can make?

As someone that likes the freedom to own even though I don't own any, I can see the writing on the wall that eventually public opinion will flip and the restrictions will be severe. Best to get ahead and contribute to a working solution now that preserves the rights of law abiding citizens but helps reduce the incidence of criminal use. Just my take.

 

[AZMark]

I don't disagree that if I were intent on killing as many people as possible, the AR in my safe would generally be the best tool for the job. What you and others seem to not understand is that everything else in there, with the exception of my bolt action .22 and pump shotgun could do the same task with about the same difficulty. The .223/5.56 round that an AR typically fires is pretty limited when you compare what else is readily available in semiautomatic configuration. This boring old hunting rifle can be fitted with a 20 round magazine and the rounds it fires are orders of magnitude more devastating... yet no calls to ban them.



Nearly everything here is objectively untrue or unworkable. Start easy: How would anyone know that this 18 year old was disturbed and should be stripped of his constitutional rights before he did anything wrong? He was never adjudicated to be mentally deficient, or even had a mental health history that has been publicly disclosed, nor was he a criminal. Its obvious now that he should have been fired off into the sun at the earliest opportunity, but how would you have stopped that from happening before he made it known what he was?

I don’t know the answer. Anything that might work would be somewhat of a loss of rights that I assume you’d probably disagree with on principle.

I don’t think anyone needs a gun in a hurry so I think deeper background checks or even a licensingcourse where you have to go learn about and shoot your gun face to face with an off duty cop or some other expert for a few hours would be a possible solution. Like a drivers license once you passed you’d be good until you lose it.

I realize people are against a registry of gun owners but I think that’s already largely out there through other data and if the dreaded us vs the govt fight starts happening everyone is going to be considered a criminal at that point anyway so is it a real concern?

Yes criminals would get around this process like they do with every other law but it doesn’t seem like career type criminals are usually using the best guns anyway, seems like they very frequently have some garbage stolen gun. These mass shootings seem to be somewhat opportunistic and I don’t feel like these guys are evil geniuses that would be able to get high quality guns or figure out how to make an effective bomb or poisoning system that others have suggested. They get mad, go to a store and get an extremely effective weapon with zero effort and go do their thing.

 

[AuburnVFR]

With few exceptions, school shooters are products of broken homes often coupled with numerous other dysfunctions. Does that mean a child from a single parent or non-traditional home should be viewed with suspicion? Certainly not, but it seems there is a stronger correlation to that than with AR15 ownership.

I don’t profess to have a solution, but I’m pretty sure stripping everyone of their rights because a few dysfunctional people don’t have the proper coping mechanisms to deal with their life is not the answer. If it is, then let’s do away with the 4th Amendment and let the police/government search everyone’s homes, phones, and computers and seize any person or property they want at will. That would stop these school shooters and other criminals as well. For a safe and secure society!

 

[Mdoiron]

I have not read all posts on this subject but tried to get an idea of the general opinion. I'm not American, I live in Canada but have alot of family in the US. Our media is very Americanized and American News channels are available to us. I'm aware of the debate around gun laws. I own 2 guns for the purpose of hunting. Buying guns in Canada is a hassle. One not done easily or quickly. You must be determined to own a gun to go through the process of buying a gun. Buying ammunition is much of the same although not quite as complicated. Guns such as AR-15's and large capacity magazines are illegal here. Hand guns are very restricted and rarely owned. Are we safer because of it? Yes! My kids schools are locked to the general public and access is restricted but we don't have police presence on campus as a precaution. I'll always have fear when I leave my children in someone else's care but I'm glad they go to a school in Canada and not in the US. As a non-American, it amazes me that people will argue their right to own a firearm ahead of their family's safety. We have crazy people in Canada also but the main difference is that they can not easily access guns to commit these atrocities.

Wake up America!

 

[AuburnVFR]

A lot of us are awake and understand the nature of power and government and that giving up rights is a slippery slope. Look at your government’s unwillingness to relinquish emergency powers during Covid, but that is another story.

 

[Mdoiron]

A lot of us are awake and understand the nature of power and government and that giving up rights is a slippery slope. Look at your government’s unwillingness to relinquish emergency powers during Covid, but that is another story.

Is it a question of giving up rights when the majority of citizens seem to support tougher gun laws? Again, as a "by-stander" it would appear that certain groups hold more power and are unwilling to give it up. I literally LOL'ed a few times this weekend hearing some comments from people attending the NRA Conference. I can tell you that if a loved one of mine was a victim of American gun violence, I would be outraged at some of the things they said. But, it is your country and your rights so you have the "right" to tell me to mind my own business. Just offering perspective from a Canadian.

 

[KCAR250]

Is it a question of giving up rights when the majority of citizens seem to support tougher gun laws? Again, as a "by-stander" it would appear that certain groups hold more power and are unwilling to give it up. I literally LOL'ed a few times this weekend hearing some comments from people attending the NRA Conference. I can tell you that if a loved one of mine was a victim of American gun violence, I would be outraged at some of the things they said. But, it is your country and your rights so you have the "right" to tell me to mind my own business. Just offering perspective from a Canadian.

I definitely don’t want America to turn into Canada!

 

[BlkGS]

The second amendment is partially meant to protect citizens from the government. While we would struggle to uprise against the military, AR-15s and similar guns are needed for this situation. While it’s far fetched, it is a possibility and why it is left open to interpretation. The founding fathers were smarter than anyone here. People don’t realize but there we are only a few steps away from all freedoms being taken away. The constitution can be legally suspended at any moment.

Gonna be real here... The US populace has no hope against the US military. The "protect ourselves from the government" shtick doesn't work with me, because I arm the government.

Believe me, one soldier equipped with some of our tech would have no issues with a whole compound of people fighting against them. The technology we arm them with is really amazing. That's just talking infantry too, not even touching the advanced stuff in drones and other mechanized resources.

 

[BlkGS]

How would anyone know that this 18 year old was disturbed and should be stripped of his constitutional rights before he did anything wrong? He was never adjudicated to be mentally deficient, or even had a mental health history that has been publicly disclosed, nor was he a criminal. Its obvious now that he should have been fired off into the sun at the earliest opportunity, but how would you have stopped that from happening before he made it known what he was?

HIS SOCIAL MEDIA. IT WAS A LITERAL MINEFIELD OF RED FLAGS.

Seriously though, our anger is misplaced. Everyone keeps going on and on about the guns, but we have a tech industry that not only was aware of it, they likely advertised the guns and violence to him, put him in an echo chamber via algorithms, and likely put him in contact with the ideas to do this all. To say nothing of the impact it might have had on his mental health or schoolwork (which supposedly him not graduating was his trigger). I guarantee you his ad profile with the tech companies reads like a checklist for violent, angry, dangerous kids that need help or they're going to cause a tragedy.

We MUST hold big tech and social media companies accountable. They are a big cause and solution to this sort of issue. Frankly, we should be charging people responsible for the algorithms and other decisions with being an accessory to these crimes, their software is radicalizing and desensitizing kids to this crap.

 

[AuburnVFR]

Is it a question of giving up rights when the majority of citizens seem to support tougher gun laws? Again, as a "by-stander" it would appear that certain groups hold more power and are unwilling to give it up. I literally LOL'ed a few times this weekend hearing some comments from people attending the NRA Conference. I can tell you that if a loved one of mine was a victim of American gun violence, I would be outraged at some of the things they said. But, it is your country and your rights so you have the "right" to tell me to mind my own business. Just offering perspective from a Canadian.

I have no issue with anyone, Canadian or otherwise, expressing a different opinion or point of view. I just don't think a reactionary mob (majority or highly vocal minority) should be able to revoke the protected rights of the overwhelming majority of responsible and law-abiding people who own firearms based on the unlawful conduct of a few deeply disturbed individuals, no matter how cowardly, disturbing, and reprehensible it is. Neither did the founding fathers, which is why there is such a high hurdle to amend the Constitution. Like I said earlier, there are other protected constitutional rights we can do away with to more effectively end this problem, but people don't want to give up their civil rights. It is much easier to give away a right you choose not to use.

 

[steveinmd]

Gonna be real here... The US populace has no hope against the US military. The "protect ourselves from the government" shtick doesn't work with me, because I arm the government.

Believe me, one soldier equipped with some of our tech would have no issues with a whole compound of people fighting against them. The technology we arm them with is really amazing. That's just talking infantry too, not even touching the advanced stuff in drones and other mechanized resources.

So the dudes that live in caves in the middle east would like to disagree with you. They have done a real bang up job at fighting the most powerful military in the world, with homemade bombs and ak-47s.

 

[steveinmd]

Here are a few photos of some projectiles used for reloading. Left to right. 9mm 115grn plated rn, .45 cal 200grn plated rn, .223 55grn fmj ball, and finally a Sierra .308 hollow point boat tail 168grn. The last pic compares a .223 55grn projectile to a 40grn .22 rimfire cartridge. An apples to oranges comparison because you cant see the whole .22 projectile.

The .223 round is very small. It is available in a variety of different configurations depending on the needs. The NATO version is called 5.56mm and it's case is a touch thicker to handle the hotter loads. .223/5.56 can range anywhere from 2600fps to over 3000fps depending on the load and the gun's barrel length.

 

[BlkGS]

So the dudes that live in caves in the middle east would like to disagree with you. They have done a real bang up job at fighting the most powerful military in the world, with homemade bombs and ak-47s.

Bit different. We could have crushed that whole area, but we were nation building.

Besides that, the tech I'm talking about didn't exist yet, and is much more useful in urban type environments that desolate remote mountains and valleys.

Suffice to say, that'd a different operational profile than controlling major us cities.

 

[Chip F.]

Don’t ever give up your rights . Just listen to these people and their political pandering supported by media. Now let’s ban guns (not just any gun but the assault rifles , or does AR stand for Armalite rifle ..I’m still trying to figure that out ?.) when a wacko goes on a rampage , let’s see what they start saying or do if Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Every life matters right? Loss of youth is a terrible thing no matter what the cause is. Look up Margaret Sanger and find out what a great human being she was. Don’t listen to the tyrants and hypocrites shouting like carnival barkers !

 

[Bluewater272]

with his criminal and violent tendencies and outburst, although have not resulted yet in criminal prosecution is just a bad idea...

This seems like pure conjecture. I've not seen any reporting yet that he had a history of violent and criminal activity that just didn't meet the bar for prosecution.

I don’t know the answer. Anything that might work would be somewhat of a loss of rights that I assume you’d probably disagree with on principle.

I don’t think anyone needs a gun in a hurry so I think deeper background checks or even a licensingcourse where you have to go learn about and shoot your gun face to face with an off duty cop or some other expert for a few hours would be a possible solution. Like a drivers license once you passed you’d be good until you lose it.

I realize people are against a registry of gun owners but I think that’s already largely out there through other data and if the dreaded us vs the govt fight starts happening everyone is going to be considered a criminal at that point anyway so is it a real concern?

Add restriction, add restrictions, add restriction...

Yes criminals would get around this process like they do with every other law but it doesn’t seem like career type criminals are usually using the best guns anyway, seems like they very frequently have some garbage stolen gun. These mass shootings seem to be somewhat opportunistic and I don’t feel like these guys are evil geniuses that would be able to get high quality guns or figure out how to make an effective bomb or poisoning system that others have suggested. They get mad, go to a store and get an extremely effective weapon with zero effort and go do their thing.

...but the restrictions won't matter because criminals are going to criminal? Then why restrict me, the guy who isn't going to shoot up a school, who despite decades of being an impulse away from a horrific event have not even considered such a thing?

I'll say it one last time - this is our bill of rights. Shall not be infringed doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. This is as important as our right to assemble, speak freely, not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, get due process and be judged by a jury, etc.

HIS SOCIAL MEDIA. IT WAS A LITERAL MINEFIELD OF RED FLAGS.

Except, it wasn't. He only publicly posted a picture of his guns, something I've done (as have many other members here, see the gun thread). That's not a red flag - end of conversation. All the crazy shit he said? Those were in messages, which if you believe Meta, are encrypted and not visible to the company. It's on the recipients of those messages for not having reported him to an authority for an investigation, not a seizure of his property without due process.

I am generally a fan of red flag laws, but not in their current iteration. They should require immediate adjudication and a codified return process. In New Jersey for instance, if you get red flagged due to a temporary restraining order that is later dropped, there is no automatic return. You must pursue it in court and its very likely a judge will not allow it.

So the dudes that live in caves in the middle east would like to disagree with you. They have done a real bang up job at fighting the most powerful military in the world, with homemade bombs and ak-47s.

The fellas defending Ukraine with hand me down weapons held their own quite well before we started giving them the 'good stuff'.

 

[drober30]

So if I go out tonight and get drunk Get a car accident and kill someone do we blame Dodge, Jim bean, the bar tender or just maybe the person who got behind the wheel of a truck? So should we ban Ram trucks? Jim bean? Or close all bars down?

Dram Shop Law

 

[KCAR250]

This seems like pure conjecture. I've not seen any reporting yet that he had a history of violent and criminal activity that just didn't meet the bar for prosecution.



Add restriction, add restrictions, add restriction...



...but the restrictions won't matter because criminals are going to criminal? Then why restrict me, the guy who isn't going to shoot up a school, who despite decades of being an impulse away from a horrific event have not even considered such a thing?

I'll say it one last time - this is our bill of rights. Shall not be infringed doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. This is as important as our right to assemble, speak freely, not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, get due process and be judged by a jury, etc.



Except, it wasn't. He only publicly posted a picture of his guns, something I've done (as have many other members here, see the gun thread). That's not a red flag - end of conversation. All the crazy shit he said? Those were in messages, which if you believe Meta, are encrypted and not visible to the company. It's on the recipients of those messages for not having reported him to an authority for an investigation, not a seizure of his property without due process.

I am generally a fan of red flag laws, but not in their current iteration. They should require immediate adjudication and a codified return process. In New Jersey for instance, if you get red flagged due to a temporary restraining order that is later dropped, there is no automatic return. You must pursue it in court and its very likely a judge will not allow it.



The fellas defending Ukraine with hand me down weapons held their own quite well before we started giving them the 'good stuff'.

There’s already people calling for limiting freedom of speech. There’s one administration that tried to creat a ministry of truth type department. Another reason we shouldn’t be so willing to give up any of our rights!

 

[ripler]

This seems like pure conjecture. I've not seen any reporting yet that he had a history of violent and criminal activity that just didn't meet the bar for prosecution.

Bullshit. I guess you don't consider threats to shoot up schools and rape and kill someone enough to be a criminal activity?
How many threats are enough for prosecution?
Eerie videos of Salvador Ramos surface as gunman threatened rapes on social media app (yahoo.com)


How about this kid? Why were his threats considered enough to have him arrested? He's 10 and can't legally buy a gun.
Shocking new mugshot shows Florida student, 10, arrested for threatening mass shooting five days after Texas massacre (the-sun.com)

 

[Bluewater272]

Bullshit. I guess you don't consider threats to shoot up schools and rape and kill someone enough to be a criminal activity?
How many threats are enough for prosecution?
Eerie videos of Salvador Ramos surface as gunman threatened rapes on social media app (yahoo.com)

Two things:

1. Believe it or not I don't read Yahoo news, and moreover what you shared is novel to me. Here's the fun part, new information informs my future thinking - you ought to try it

2. I don't know a damn thing about Yubo, and just now learned of its existence. After a couple minutes of research, it doesn't seem like communications are encrypted the same way Meta's are, and perhaps their claimed algorithm is insufficient for their chosen media, livestreaming (I couldn't think of something harder to monitor in real-time). So yeah, could that company do a better job? Absolutely.

As your second snarky link points out, recipients of disturbing messages and social media livestreams have a chance to report it to local authorities, who may choose to do what the Florida cops did.

 

[BlkGS]

Short version.... I don't believe a damn thing meta claims. Especially when they are in a compromising position in how their platform is used.

Moreover, theses sites don't collect data on just what you post. They collect data on ALL of your activity. They knew he was crazy, and likely advertised the weapons to him in the first place.