|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 6:52:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 17, 2018 7:37:26 GMT -5
So the FBI has come clean that they blew it, and I'm sure there will be all the stuff that follows. They didn't forward it on to their local field office, nor local police.
But why is it the FBI that handles something like this? Why not some local or state police agency?
Did the FBI take the 911 calls and eventually grab this shooter? No, it was local.
If I've got someone I'm worried about--as a dangerous person--where is the fork in the decision tree that indicates something is an FBI vs a local/county/state police matter?
"We've got a neighbor kid who seems weird and likes guns." Is that FBI-level stuff? Would something have happened differently if the tipper had called local police?
I'm just asking. How do you know when to call the FBI, or some other police agency?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 7:41:28 GMT -5
Most of it, anyway. We figured that out in Iraq and Afghanistan and countless other places. It applies here as well. Folks who feel disconnected, regardless of the venue, be it socially, politically, or economically can be violent. That said, there isn't one fix to this problem, and sure as hell memes and bumper stickers aren't going to fix it either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 7:45:42 GMT -5
But why is it the FBI that handles something like this? Why not some local or state police agency? The FBI should have handled this because they fielded the report. John Q. Public called them, not the local police. Had the FBI done the right thing and passed this up, or off to the locals, then the locals would have had a chance to work on it. Didn't happen, so there we are. Maybe we need to amp up a public service message campaign. We get trained on indicators in the Army for a variety of situations. Something like, "On April 15, McDonalds is bringing back the McRib sandwich (notice - there isn't an m in there), and if your neighbor has expressed a desire to be a mass shooter, call your local PD!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 7:49:43 GMT -5
Trump and the republicans revearsed Obama era legislation that kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mike [...] Let's blame those bitter clingers. Must be their fault.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 7:55:49 GMT -5
This misses a major point. The second amendment is NOT about deer rifles and duck shotguns. It's not about protecting oneself from burglars and rapists either. It is about a free people keeping government in check. I don't want to hear retorts about using a puny little AR-15 against Blackhawk helicopters and such. Yes, on my own I am no match against a tyranny, but millions of us are. The Colonists fought off the most powerful military in the world and we became citizens of America instead of subjects under the Crown. But, if *you want to say it's about hunting for food then a bolt action deer rifle and a pump 12 gauge are gonna be the last things banned - and a deer rifle can be lethal at hundreds of yards and a 12 gauge could eradicate a classroom in little time. So, either change the second amendment by the prescribed process so *you can legally strip me of my guns and freedom or respect the Bill of Rights and get *your hands off of em. *By "you" and "your" I am speaking of gun-grabbers, NOT any specific forumite.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 17, 2018 8:03:35 GMT -5
Gee, how is that going?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 8:33:36 GMT -5
Most of it, anyway. We figured that out in Iraq and Afghanistan and countless other places. It applies here as well. Folks who feel disconnected, regardless of the venue, be it socially, politically, or economically can be violent. That said, there isn't one fix to this problem Absolutely. There isn't going to be one fix. And I'm thinking this is so because what our brave new world is needing to replace was interwoven into the old world (the one being replaced) in a very complex way. For the materialist to manage the new order is going to require replacing all that....and it is proposing to be able to replace from the top down what has been in place from the bottom up for millennia. It may be able to do it. If mankind is really evolving into a better race, maybe it will find a way. Maybe it is finding a way. It certainly shows every sign of believing in its own capability to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 10:41:29 GMT -5
So the FBI has come clean that they blew it, and I'm sure there will be all the stuff that follows. They didn't forward it on to their local field office, nor local police. But why is it the FBI that handles something like this? Why not some local or state police agency? Did the FBI take the 911 calls and eventually grab this shooter? No, it was local. If I've got someone I'm worried about--as a dangerous person--where is the fork in the decision tree that indicates something is an FBI vs a local/county/state police matter? "We've got a neighbor kid who seems weird and likes guns." Is that FBI-level stuff? Would something have happened differently if the tipper had called local police? I'm just asking. How do you know when to call the FBI, or some other police agency? Yes it's an FBI matter, because they can maintain a database of people that shouldn't be allowed to have guns. But yes it's a local matter too. Schools (or school districts) need to have their own psyche analysis looking out for disaffected types that might be capable of something like this. The students in this guy's class were known to say that this kid was capable of doing this. Somebody has to be listening. I know that sounds like Big Brother. But this is a national epidemic. Something effective has to be done to reduce violence like this in schools.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 10:49:36 GMT -5
This misses a major point. The second amendment is NOT about deer rifles and duck shotguns. It's not about protecting oneself from burglars and rapists either. It is about a free people keeping government in check. I don't want to hear retorts about using a puny little AR-15 against Blackhawk helicopters and such. Yes, on my own I am no match against a tyranny, but millions of us are. The Colonists fought off the most powerful military in the world and we became citizens of America instead of subjects under the Crown. But, if *you want to say it's about hunting for food then a bolt action deer rifle and a pump 12 gauge are gonna be the last things banned - and a deer rifle can be lethal at hundreds of yards and a 12 gauge could eradicate a classroom in little time. So, either change the second amendment by the prescribed process so *you can legally strip me of my guns and freedom or respect the Bill of Rights and get *your hands off of em. *By "you" and "your" I am speaking of gun-grabbers, NOT any specific forumite. We've had this discussion many times before. There already is constitutionally legal gun control. You can't own one of those Blackhawk helicopters, or an M1 tank, or a bazooka, or a machine gun. The discussion is not about the absolute right of the 2nd Amendment, but about where society decides to draw the line.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 10:57:39 GMT -5
That being said, the most urgent issue in all this is allowing someone as mentally ill as this kid to have legal access to any weaponry. That's where society has to do a better job. And it's disgustingly irresponsible if the NRA does not support some effort to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 11:01:32 GMT -5
This misses a major point. The second amendment is NOT about deer rifles and duck shotguns. It's not about protecting oneself from burglars and rapists either. It is about a free people keeping government in check. I don't want to hear retorts about using a puny little AR-15 against Blackhawk helicopters and such. Yes, on my own I am no match against a tyranny, but millions of us are. The Colonists fought off the most powerful military in the world and we became citizens of America instead of subjects under the Crown. But, if *you want to say it's about hunting for food then a bolt action deer rifle and a pump 12 gauge are gonna be the last things banned - and a deer rifle can be lethal at hundreds of yards and a 12 gauge could eradicate a classroom in little time. So, either change the second amendment by the prescribed process so *you can legally strip me of my guns and freedom or respect the Bill of Rights and get *your hands off of em. *By "you" and "your" I am speaking of gun-grabbers, NOT any specific forumite. We've had this discussion many times before. There already is constitutionally legal gun control. You can't own one of those Blackhawk helicopters, or an M1 tank, or a bazooka, or a machine gun. The discussion is not about the absolute right of the 2nd Amendment, but about where society decides to draw the line. Sorry for butting in, but I think that's XYRN's point. That drawing the line shouldn't be simply at allowing hunters of self-defense. The point is that an armed populace meant the same thing in the day of the writing of the Constitution as it means now. That part of that being armed was the inherent distrust of tyrannical government. And, ironically, every time someone posts that ubiquitous meme (or any variant thereof) of a musket over an AR15 with the caption "This is what being armed meant at the time the Constitution was written" ... they are only unwittingly amplifying the point to those who get it, that the AR15 -- or more --- is going to be necessary to hold back a tyrannical government, because the government TOO only had muskets and cannons at the writing of the Constitution -- and the muskets weren't the government's. There was more parity between government's and citizen's levels of armament back then than there is now. We have already -- by those current gun laws -- allowed ourselves a level of vulnerability that did not exist before. And we're having this discussion as we are poised at the very precipice we fear the most -- totalitarianism and fascism -- both extremes in the US absolutely CERTAIN that the other side is poised to impose it on them. From 2009-2016 one side was positive of the fascism posed by the left, and currently the left's hair is aflame with fear that Trump IS a fascist.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 11:02:43 GMT -5
That being said, the most urgent issue in all this is allowing someone as mentally ill as this kid to have legal access to any weaponry. That's where society has to do a better job. And it's disgustingly irresponsible if the NRA does not support some effort to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Millring's link above is pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 11:10:11 GMT -5
Are countries that ban such guns fascist? Is Canada? Is Australia? I find the right's fears way out of proportion to reality.
And the left's too. The sad thing is there is no room for middle-of-the-road non-emotional discourse in this country.
And the value of a well regulated militia to protect the individual's rights was pretty much negated by the Civil War.
(The Revolutionary War was probably a lucky fluke. And it would be interesting to know what would have happened if the Colonists had lost. We'd likely still have the queen's head on our coins. But the US wouldn't have remained a colony for long. Colonialism was on the down slope. )
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 11:12:09 GMT -5
And the value of a well regulated militia to protect the individual's rights was pretty much negated by the Civil War. How so?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 11:17:09 GMT -5
Come on? The South decided to secede from the union. They had a pretty powerful well regulated militia. They put up a strong resistance, and in the end got their butts kicked. It did them no good. Probably worse than if they hadn't tried to rebel.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 11:27:36 GMT -5
On the other hand, the most sophisticated, best armed military in the world has been held to no better than a draw in every conflict since the 1950s with Panama and Grenada being the only exceptions. Take away an armed populace and that's not so.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 17, 2018 11:30:27 GMT -5
Just to take one last whiplash-inducing turn...
I personally dread what awaits us around the corner because I -- and people who believe as I do (however few we might currently be) -- won't take up arms when the government turns on us completely. And it's turning now.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 17, 2018 12:11:55 GMT -5
While I'm fixing our laundry closet the wife has the news on in the next room. What I'm learning that I hadn't realized before is just how effective we've become at solving yesterday's problems.
You do realize don't you that we haven't had a single incidence of someone flying a jet into a high rise building since 2001, right?
Damn, the professional blow hards are rightfully taking a bow.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 17, 2018 12:50:17 GMT -5
On the other hand, the most sophisticated, best armed military in the world has been held to no better than a draw in every conflict since the 1950s with Panama and Grenada being the only exceptions. Take away an armed populace and that's not so. Those are wars from afar that we are not totally committed to. It's a completely different animal than an internal civil war for control of a nation. We don't want to annex Afghanistan as the 51st state. That title goes goes to Canada.
|
|