Apparently mentally ill people can get guns and they don't even have to be cops!
Hello November 22, 2017, 11:07:11 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
   Home   Help Arcade Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Apparently mentally ill people can get guns and they don't even have to be cops!  (Read 101 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(Hidden)

« on: October 14, 2017, 06:58:04 pm »

This mentally ill guy shot his best friend that he lived with for 10 years thirteen times, and doesn't even remember doing it!
He owned a shotgun and a handgun.   That is NUTS! 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/14/former-trump-campaigner-and-rubio-intern-shot-13-times-while-sleeping.html
Logged
1x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2017, 07:20:57 pm »

This mentally ill guy shot his best friend that he lived with for 10 years thirteen times, and doesn't even remember doing it!
He owned a shotgun and a handgun.   That is NUTS! 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/14/former-trump-campaigner-and-rubio-intern-shot-13-times-while-sleeping.html

To quote Bill O'Reilly, the NRA and many Republicans: "It's the cost of freedom."

There are no laws saying you can take someone's guns away because they have a severe mental condition. What is your argument against people who have severe mental conditions but are responsibly taking their medications? Can they not own guns? If they have committed a felony before and have served prison time, it will be illegal for them to get a gun and that's one of the current laws that aren't being as enforced as it should. Every citizen has a right to bear arms unless they lose that right through some illegal action they've committed.
Logged
1x Thumb Up



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2017, 07:26:31 pm »

Colin Ferguson, Long Island Railroad shooter, was declared a nutter in New York, so he went to VA to get his guns.   

Did they ever fix that loop hole?   Declared legally insane in one state which bans you from owning a gun, but you could go to another state and get one? 
Logged
1x Thumb Up



(Hidden)

« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2017, 07:45:52 pm »

Colin Ferguson, Long Island Railroad shooter, was declared a nutter in New York, so he went to VA to get his guns.   

Did they ever fix that loop hole?   Declared legally insane in one state which bans you from owning a gun, but you could go to another state and get one? 

I'm pretty sure they've never fixed that loophole. Both parties have been terrible on enforcing the current laws and creating ways to address the many loopholes. Some Democrats solution is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens and nearly every Republican is against creating legislation to restrict gun access to people who should not have them. I just think this is the new normal and everyone just has to rely on luck that they will not be shot while out of their homes. It sounds awful but special interests and the lobbyists are winning, especially now that the NRA and other groups like it are recognized as living breathing individuals that cannot be regulated on how much money and influence they can use on individual lawmakers. Corporations and special interests are individuals who have individual rights just like us; therefore, they have the same amount of influence as us, right?  Roll Eyes
Logged
1x Thumb Up



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2017, 09:03:19 pm »

Colin Ferguson, Long Island Railroad shooter, was declared a nutter in New York, so he went to VA to get his guns.   

Did they ever fix that loop hole?   Declared legally insane in one state which bans you from owning a gun, but you could go to another state and get one? 

I'm pretty sure they've never fixed that loophole. Both parties have been terrible on enforcing the current laws and creating ways to address the many loopholes. Some Democrats solution is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens and nearly every Republican is against creating legislation to restrict gun access to people who should not have them. I just think this is the new normal and everyone just has to rely on luck that they will not be shot while out of their homes. It sounds awful but special interests and the lobbyists are winning, especially now that the NRA and other groups like it are recognized as living breathing individuals that cannot be regulated on how much money and influence they can use on individual lawmakers. Corporations and special interests are individuals who have individual rights just like us; therefore, they have the same amount of influence as us, right?  Roll Eyes

I would add that cops are among the LEAST law abiding citizens.   They are given carte blanche to commit crimes.  The classic example is a cop that beats the shit out of his wife but is never charged with a crime. 
Logged
1x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2017, 12:13:59 pm »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.
Logged
1x Thumb Up



(Hidden)

« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2017, 05:02:13 pm »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I'm not sure why... it could be that it is difficult to designate who is insane, and how insane are they?  There might also be a problem getting people to submit to psychological examinations if the person thought that they could lose their guns if they did so.  i would suggest that an insane person is MORE likely to own a gun than a sane person. 
Logged
1x Thumb Up


(Hidden)

« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2017, 09:48:38 pm »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.
Logged
1x Thumb Up



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2017, 12:01:23 am »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them. 
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2017, 12:49:51 am »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them. 
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?
Logged



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2017, 04:05:28 am »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them. 
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun. 

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQBhUzEsO-Y
Logged


(Hidden)

« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2017, 04:49:11 am »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.   

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them. 
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun. 

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQBhUzEsO-Y

Good point. I believe the laws in place can stop a ton of gun violence if they were actually enforced. The loopholes can be closed by Republicans passing careful legislation, so careful that Democrats can't exploit it. Other than that, I don't think much can be done without addressing the gun lobbyists and other special interests on both sides. Would it be right to do a buyback program to take legal, sane gun owners' guns?

Also, you're absolutely right about the cops. There are many cop stories where they accidentally shot themselves and gave the description of black men who did it Grin
Logged



LOCK HIM UP
(Hidden)

« Reply #12 on: October 16, 2017, 05:28:28 am »

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.  

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them.  
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun.  

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQBhUzEsO-Y

Good point. I believe the laws in place can stop a ton of gun violence if they were actually enforced. The loopholes can be closed by Republicans passing careful legislation, so careful that Democrats can't exploit it. Other than that, I don't think much can be done without addressing the gun lobbyists and other special interests on both sides. Would it be right to do a buyback program to take legal, sane gun owners' guns?

Also, you're absolutely right about the cops. There are many cop stories where they accidentally shot themselves and gave the description of black men who did it Grin

In regards to cop shootings.. often not only are cops shot with their OWN weapons, but the cops get injured from the bullets fired by OTHER cops.  There have been recent cases where one cop shoots at a suspect through a window.. only to find out the suspect they just killed was another cop.  

Obama had 8 years to do something, anything about cops.. but did absolutely NOTHING!   No excuse for that.
Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  

* Permissions
You can't post new topics.
You can't post replies.
You can't post attachments.
You can't modify your posts.
BBCode Enabled
Smilies Enabled
[img] Enabled
HTML Disabled

 
Jump to: