The Commish
Footballguy
I'm in. You notice no one wants to talk about those proposals?@Joe Bryant is about to start the "common sense gun control laws" lobby group. PM him (or Shuke) for details
I'm in. You notice no one wants to talk about those proposals?@Joe Bryant is about to start the "common sense gun control laws" lobby group. PM him (or Shuke) for details
Yup.I'm in. You notice no one wants to talk about those proposals?
I believe it is the source of the famous sentiment “I wouldn’t make water on your tiny capitol building if it were on fire.”Sure, mock them, but at your own peril Sir. Have you forgotten Gulliver v. Lilliputians, et al. 111 P. 2d 723?
Thank you for the link. Apparently it links through to a study by Everytown For Gun Safety. I was unaware of that group. Apparently they are an advocacy group, funded by Michael Bloomberg, and are not immune to some controversy. I am not familiar enough with them, yet, to opine one way or another on their premise as to mass shootings. Now certainly preventing those convicted of violence against spouses or domestic partners makes sense standing on its own, regardless of a relationship to mass shootings. I have, hundreds of times early in my prosecutorial career, back when I prosecuted misdemeanors, asked the judge to order weapons forfeit, and have had that motion granted.DW, here’s a fact sheet on the connection between domestic violence misdemeanors and mass shootings:
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/
I’ll try to address your questions about juveniles later on.
I believe it is the source of the famous sentiment “I wouldn’t make water on your tiny capital building if it were on fire.”
studies show mentally ill not the problem - that was in that article you linkedDo I agree with what?
The article I linked showed that research show that mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than to start the violence themselves. I'd say that's true of anyone. I am more likely to be a victim of violence than I am to start violence. You probably are too. One of the main reasons the ACLU took exception with the law as it was proposed was because of the WAY it was approached and the way it was written. They didn't like the premise. It made assumptions it probably shouldn't have. All their opposition stems from there. The only thing you and the ACLU and/or NRA have in common is the net end...don't ban the guns. The reasons are very different. Craft the legislation differently and it doesn't seem the ACLU has an issue at all with the concept of banning guns or restricting gun ownership.studies show mentally ill not the problem - that was in that article you linked
You sure? Depends on what they run on and hopefully all candidates are held to a position on fixing the mass shooting problem.People are so tired of this.
I see a big victory for Democrats come the mid-term elections.
I disagreeThe article I linked showed that research show that mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than to start the violence themselves.
That 3% should be a no-brainer.Matthias said:There's been 30 mass shootings in the US so far this year. We're in mid-February if you forgot.
And you think the solution to this problem, and the glaring deficiency, is in failure to keep 1 American under surveillance after someone reporting something about him. And then ignore the circumstances of the other 29 mass shootings. Rather than look to see what went wrong in all 30.
Honey, I maybe solved 3% of our problem!!!
Again...another reason I suspect you don't really like our judicial system or how it works. You don't get to make these judgments so it doesn't really matter what your opinion is on something like this. Until you are willing to engage this conversation from the position of reality instead of your own personal ideology, your comments aren't going to matter at allStealthycat said:I disagreeThe Commish said:The article I linked showed that research show that mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than to start the violence themselves.
I'd say anyone wanting to kill kids in a school is mentally ill
I think the point he was trying to make is that nobody of sound mind wakes up one day and says, hey I am going to kill a bunch of people today. There are signs, history, decisions, comments, etc that show these people are not mentally stable. They may not meet the classic legal definition of "mentally ill" but they do have issues and warning signs before it escalates to the mass shooting. Stating very few mass shooters are mentally ill is not really staying in reality either.Again...another reason I suspect you don't really like our judicial system or how it works. You don't get to make these judgments so it doesn't really matter what your opinion is on something like this. Until you are willing to engage this conversation from the position of reality instead of your own personal ideology, your comments aren't going to matter at all
ETA: But again....the article shows and states exactly what I said it does.
so do you want mentally ill people to get guns or don't you ?Again...another reason I suspect you don't really like our judicial system or how it works. You don't get to make these judgments so it doesn't really matter what your opinion is on something like this. Until you are willing to engage this conversation from the position of reality instead of your own personal ideology, your comments aren't going to matter at all
ETA: But again....the article shows and states exactly what I said it does. The glaringly funny thing is in one breath you say "see the study shows the mentally ill aren't the problem" and in the very next breath you say "Anyone wanting to kill kids in school is mentally ill" So which is it?
And this is a fine position to take in the court of public opinion, but that doesn't do much for us in any practical terms. We can't flip from our judicial system to some other standard just because we feel like it. As a result, laws have to be changed, give more leeway to do these sorts of things.I think the point he was trying to make is that nobody of sound mind wakes up one day and says, hey I am going to kill a bunch of people today. There are signs, history, decisions, comments, etc that show these people are not mentally stable. They may not meet the classic legal definition of "mentally ill" but they do have issues and warning signs before it escalates to the mass shooting. Stating very few mass shooters are mentally ill is not really staying in reality either.
wait, what?! You've used them over and over as evidence of groups NOT the NRA that don't want to see bans on guns. You've brought them up dozens of times as evidence and you don't buy their argument?So no, I don't buy what the ACLU said in that case at all.
No. That's the main entrance to the campus. He went in the front door of the freshman building on the north side of the campus. It was open because school was being dismissed.tonydead said:Now your just being obtuse. You mean this front door? Where he would have to walk through the gate first, and then presumably quite a distance inside the gate to encounter anybody when classes were in session? I mean that's the perfect scenario for the FBI to catch him within the campus limits, a third degree felony.
I think this is a case by case basis. That's why I think a screening should be done. A person with ADHA is considered mentally ill in this country. So is a bi polar schizophrenic. There need to be more specific guidelines. "Mentally ill" is too general a term to be used here....that's what the ACLU argued in their retort to the legislation passed. It's not as black/white as you want it to be.so do you want mentally ill people to get guns or don't you ?
And by all reports he pulled the fire alarm, like he had done many time before, to get people to come out of class. He was dropped off at 2:19. Ending class bell doesn't ring until 2:40. Do you just make this stuff up as you go?No. That's the main entrance to the campus. He went in the front door of the freshman building on the north side of the campus. It was open because school was being dismissed.
From: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/17/minute-minute-how-parkland-school-shooting-unfolded/345817002/And by all reports he pulled the fire alarm, like he had done many time before, to get people to come out of class. He was dropped off at 2:19. Ending class bell doesn't ring until 2:40. Do you just make this stuff up as you go?
Since classes were set to end soon, the gates to the parking lots of the sprawling campus of more than 3,000 students were open to allow buses and cars to enter.
Normally, a visitor would need to go through the school's main entrance on Coral Springs Drive.
Within two minutes of Cruz emerging from the car, the shooting started.
so do you want mentally ill people to get guns or don't you ?
ACLU seems to say on one hand they're not a threat to anyone.
yes - I disagree with anyone who says people walking into schools and killing kids doesn't have a mental issue. They're not right, that's not normal behavior for a normal person. How anyone can claim differently baffles me.
So no, I don't buy what the ACLU said in that case at all.
Perfect. The door to that building is well within the campus. The FBI could have stopped him as soon as he exited the vehicle.
You want FBI stationed at every school?Perfect. The door to that building is well within the campus. The FBI could have stopped him as soon as he exited the vehicle.
and that's why the ACLU and NRA and other groups fight hard when laws are proposed that impact people's RightsI think this is a case by case basis. That's why I think a screening should be done. A person with ADHA is considered mentally ill in this country. So is a bi polar schizophrenic. There need to be more specific guidelines. "Mentally ill" is too general a term to be used here....that's what the ACLU argued in their retort to the legislation passed. It's not as black/white as you want it to be.
All of them. Jobs for everyone!!!Matthias said:How many nutjobs who haven't broken the law should we put around-the-clock surveillance on forever? TIA.
Suspicious? Reported to the FBI twice, had altercations with the police 39 times, was expelled 3 times, et. al. I'd be surprised if this guy didn't check every box on the FBI profile list.Matthias said:It is a no-brainer. You apparently think the federal intelligence agencies should spend all of their time keeping tabs on whoever gets called in by their neighbors to be suspicious. So you make big government intrusive, keep them from investigating all sorts of other crimes, expect them what, arrest someone who hasn't broken a law? to not solve 97% of the problem.
Big expenses. Big intrusion onto the lives of American citizens. Do almost nothing result-wise. And use it to avoid something that 68% of Americans want.
Yup. Sounds like a GOP proposal.
Every entrance to every school.You want FBI stationed at every school?
In order to stop a shooting that took less than 2 minutes to start from the moment he exited the vehicle, shadowing would require they be there already.Matthias said:No. Continually shadowing every nutjob.
Yep. This is where the Uber probably dropped him off: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.3055292,-80.2679971,3a,75y,205.79h,83.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s92gKmUfFIZ_WxFGnBJDZwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656Every entrance to every school.
And Malls.
And Movie Theaters.
And Sports Arenas.
And Car Washes.
And Night Clubs.
kinda yes, they haveNo, the ACLU has not seemed to say anything like that.
Love that I get to quote Die Hard here:More obtuseness.
The guy was reported to the FBI multiple times as a threat. Had they check him out he would have fit the profile of the school shooter. One guy following him could have prevented this.
thisPerfect. The door to that building is well within the campus. The FBI could have stopped him as soon as he exited the vehicle.
not really noMatthias said:Oh, there's huge flaws in this post alright.
Wait, I thought it was 12 people guarding every door of every building in the country!!!!!!!!!!!Matthias said:Every day, all day. Yeah. That makes a #### ton of sense.
a very very low % of school shootings are assault weapons and the kids that would have used them will use other guns ... you've essentially done nothing to stop criminalsMatthias said:Let's do anything other than what 68% of the country wants and ban assault rifles
nobody ever said thatWait, I thought it was 12 people guarding every door of every building in the country!!!!!!!!!!!
You JUST said you disagreed with the ACLU on the case I linked. Are you aware of how you're contradicting yourself? And I am pretty sure you have said here, if it were left up to you he'd be executed within the week, so as to the bold...you? But I confess...I have no idea what your position is anymore. It would help a great deal for you to recap your position BEYOND "guns good...don't take my guns".and that's why the ACLU and NRA and other groups fight hard when laws are proposed that impact people's RightsI think this is a case by case basis. That's why I think a screening should be done. A person with ADHA is considered mentally ill in this country. So is a bi polar schizophrenic. There need to be more specific guidelines. "Mentally ill" is too general a term to be used here....that's what the ACLU argued in their retort to the legislation passed. It's not as black/white as you want it to be.
how many here agree that the Rights to a fair trial, a lengthy trial, appeals etc should be taken from Cruz? Anyone ? Anyone at all ?
It's true that paying for four FBI agents to keep him under 24/7 (168 hours per week, 42 hours per agent) closely followed surveillance would have made it harder for Cruz to do what he did. But that solution would require a ####load more FBI agents given that kind of high level surveillance is currently only done for a fraction of people the FBI is currently monitoring. So yes it would make it harder for Cruz, but that's a TON of tax dollars for that solution.Matthias said:It's great when the right proposes things that don't make an ### lick's of sense as the obvious thing which should have been done.
We employ over a million security guards every year, full time, to guard things that are important to us. What price are you putting on children's lives?Matthias said:I'm going to guess that feds make $100,000/yr. And probably cost something more like $180,000/yr once you fully load their costs. So if they're doing 8 hour days, you got 3 guys. Each with a partner. Let's spend over $1mm/yr shadowing some guy in case he's the one crazy guy who ever does anything.
He wants them to have had 24/7 surveillance on Cruz so the moment he stepped on the campus they could have stopped him.You want FBI stationed at every school?
I think mentally ill should be banned from owning guns - how do you define that? THAT is what the ACLU and NRA argued - the proposal was assign - targeting autistic people and such who is on welfare- those people don't commit mass murders !You JUST said you disagreed with the ACLU on the case I linked. Are you aware of how you're contradicting yourself? And I am pretty sure you have said here, if it were left up to you he'd be executed within the week, so as to the bold...you? But I confess...I have no idea what your position is anymore. It would help a great deal for you to recap your position BEYOND "guns good...don't take my guns".
I'll vote to ban assault rifles today. We need to fix whatever holes were in the FBI reporting and handling of this situation too. IMO.Matthias said:There's, "I forgot my wallet at home" dumb.
There's, "I walked into a closed door" dumb.
There's, "I wanted to see what the high from drinking wood alcohol was like" dumb.
There's, "I think Trump is an honest guy" dumb.
And then there's, "I'm going to repeat all the NRA gun control talking points" dumb.
It would be cheaper to just have an FBI agent stationed at every school when they're in session. And even that solution is ridiculously expensive.He wants them to have had 24/7 surveillance on Cruz so the moment he stepped on the campus they could have stopped him.
How ever many agents that would take, for however long time it would take
At least that is how I understand his line of argumentation
Post Offices too.Every entrance to every school.
And Malls.
And Movie Theaters.
And Sports Arenas.
And Car Washes.
And Night Clubs.
and you've done nothing but keep law abiding citizens from buying them - you've literally reduced school shooting and criminal behavior not at allI'll vote to ban assault rifles today.