Once Again, Cops Ignore Warnings About Shooter

[Moonglow]

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

I know this guy fncceo had had several bouts of dysfunction yet carries a weapon.

 

[tycho1572]

We will always be paying a price for certain freedoms and bad decisions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

Becaus
U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

 

[Gracie]

wow. After reading the link in the OP, it sounds just like OldSchool.

 

[bodecea]

'Most dangerous person I've ever dealt with': Lawyer feared newspaper murder suspect

This happened years ago, the stalking of the woman.

Nutty Hannity blamed the shooting on Maxine Waters and Obama.
https://www.sfgate.com/entertainmen...y-Blames-Maxine-Waters-Obama-for-13035125.php

Funny to blame an INCEL terrorist on Waters.

 

[2aguy]

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?
If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

Tell that to German, Britain, Australia, France, Canada, New York, California......you act like it hasn't happened in the past, and yet, it happens over and over again......

The democrats said it you doofus, at the CNN town hall, at the school walk outs and at the D.C. rallies.....you can't lie about this anymore, your allies in the gun confiscation movement couldn't contain themselves any more and told us the truth...finally......

 

[fncceo]

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

I know this guy fncceo had had several bouts of dysfunction yet carries a weapon.

If you knew the whole story, you wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

 

[eflatminor]

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?
If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

 

[eflatminor]

Sounds like you're advocating the infringement of rights without due process. Pass.

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

Just bootlickers you gu

 

[Wry Catcher]

I disagree. I'm sure the NRA would agree with you, I'm certain the victims and their families would not.

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

Just bootlickers you gu

Posted by an illiterate fool ^^^, thanks so much for sharing.

 

[eflatminor]

and as the communist fks began to lose their rights, and then their guns they. thought " dam I wish I had a gun".....

European lunatics won't take America's gun get that straight . YOU LOONS ON THE LEFT WILL NEVER TAKE THE RIGHT FOR ONE TO DEFEND OURSELVES..... WE WILL NOT BE LIKE EUROPE!

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

Just bootlickers you gu

Posted by an illiterate fool ^^^, thanks so much for sharing.

Ah yes, the ad hominem attack. The last vestige of the desperate.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

We have a current background check system that catches some prohibited individuals from legally purchasing a weapon but my understanding is that all the system accomplishes is preventing the legal purchase of the weapon in question. It does not send out alerts, the prohibited individuals are rarely if ever prosecuted, they aren't flagged in other databases, etc. It also does not prevent the individual from obtaining a firearm unlawfully.

In this case as well as the case of the Parkland shooter Cruz, there wasn't just a red flag, there were several consistent verbal and written threats made which no one followed up on, with the exception of the attempt to Baker Act Cruz, at least that I'm aware of.

If the "powers that be" can't follow a flaming neon colored trail of "red flags" in cases as blatantly obvious as these, how can you blame anyone for not wanting to be targeted for further intrusions into their personal lives and privacy when they have nothing of the sort in their own background.

 

[Coyote]

Millions of people in the US with histories of mental issues and only so many resources to investigate them. Cops rely on the public to report imminent threats of potential violence.

It is also really hard to know when someone will become violent and when they won't and a history of mental illness is not always present. Take the Las Vegas shooter for example.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The BIG LIE, it never dies:

Gun Regulations do not = Gun Confiscation.

Only the liars and fools who echo liars make the claim that this is an agenda of the Democratic Party, liberals, progressives and even surviving victims of gun violence.

Common sense requires gun controls.

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

Just bootlickers you gu

Posted by an illiterate fool ^^^, thanks so much for sharing.

Ah yes, the ad hominem attack. The last vestige of the desperate.

You posted:

"What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

"Just bootlickers you gu

Looks like you are desperate for attention, and an asshole, hypocrite variety.

 

[eflatminor]

The BIG TRUTH, it's always been so:

Thugs and crazies don't give two shits about your regulations. Even if we overlook the inevitable confiscation we've seen around the world, all your regulations do is put good people at a disadvantage. This is insane.

Common sense requires the ability to recognize reality.

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

Just bootlickers you gu

Posted by an illiterate fool ^^^, thanks so much for sharing.

Ah yes, the ad hominem attack. The last vestige of the desperate.

You posted:

"What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

"Just bootlickers you gu

Looks like you are desperate for attention, and an asshole, hypocrite variety.

Yes, a question you did not answer, except with yet another logical fallacy.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[depotoo]

Or the Parkland shooter...

And yet - Barrel stokers refuse to make mental and criminal BG checks universal or give cops more authority to separate kooks like this from their weapons even after an incredibly compelling report of stalking.

Setting aside the fact this guy was never adjudicated mentally unfit, nor did he have a criminal record. Let's also set aside that, according to the link, a stalking charge was never filed with the police.

Yes, all that aside, what makes you think a lunatic is going to follow a rule that says he can't have a firearm. You think that will stop thugs and crazies from getting a gun? Really?

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

Becaus

And then it is a National average of about 20 minutes for the cops to arrive (do you concur fncceo). Certainly a compelling reason to take some personal responsibility in self preservation... As an aside, I'd love to hear any insight from fncceo (and the rest of y'all) on any anecdotal legality issues come across with single & 'double action only' personal protection revolvers... I'm assuming that there are some judges that jump all over the discharge of single actions, no matter what the scenario.

Why the focus on revolvers? If the firearm is legal in your state, you're good. Now, whether your employer allows you to be armed at work is another matter.

U're right, I should have said pistols. What I'm getting at is the disparate take the legal system might have on double vs single action defensive shootings. TKS eflatminor

If the firearm is legal in your state, the law will not draw a different conclusion in a self defense situation. It's about how you act, now what weapon you use, from an old fashion single action revolver (where you have to pull back the hammer for each round in the cylinder) to a modern semiautomatic pistol with a detachable magazine.

If the law required anyone who was investigated for stalking, or for making threats on the internet, or other concerns & comes under suspicion that s/he may be a danger to another, and s/he applies to purchase a firearm, a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally.

a vetting process passed by the State
could require the seller to notify the proper authority within the state to interview the would be gun owner, determine if he needed to be evaluated by mental health professionals, before any gun was sold legally


Yeah....they could do that just like they did for the Pulse Night Club shooter..... you know, where a co-worker reported him as a possible terrorist, and the FBI initiated a year long investigation, approached him with an undercover operative, questioned him 3 times with professional FBI interrogators, and did a detailed background check.......oh, not to forget the background check his employer did when he became a security guard, or the background checks they did when he purchased each of the guns he used to kill 49 people...

That level of background check worked out just fine...right? Meanwhile, in New York, the single mother working as a nurse can't get a gun permit so she won't be raped at a bus stop.....

Or like the vetting process for the guy with the dishonorable discharge from the Air Force who still passed a background check for the gun he used to kill 26 people at the Texas Church....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Exactly, common sense demands that human beings be regulated. Of course I'm not suggesting a King, or an Authoritarian Executive as we have now, but common sense regulations protecting people and the earth, air and water.

What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

Just bootlickers you gu

Posted by an illiterate fool ^^^, thanks so much for sharing.

Ah yes, the ad hominem attack. The last vestige of the desperate.

You posted:

"What makes you such a mindless gov-bot? These rules you crave must be enforced by armed government agents, regardless of who is in power. Frickin' boot lickers...

"Just bootlickers you gu

Looks like you are desperate for attention, and an asshole, hypocrite variety.

Yes, a question you did not answer, except with yet another logical fallacy.

Thanks for proving my point.

So you finally admit to being an asshole. good for you. Now try to admit you're also a hypocrite, and then see a good therapist who may help you recover from the trauma which made you what you are today.