Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
+1
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.
What a fucking stupid law.
The dumb thing is that someone hasn't just gone out and "broken the law" by this point.
I mean I doubt they would get arrested for it.
I am legitimately not certain about that.
No seriously, anyone getting arrested for it would be basically a hero at this point and lol at the court for trying to punish them
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.
What a fucking stupid law.
No. It is a bigoted, racist, and disgusting law, but it is not stupid by any means. By removing the power to control whether or not the flag flies from the state executive, it makes it so there is no one point of influence, while giving the governor political cover.
Are there any indications that this guy actually has a mental illness, by the way?
His words and actions show he was a racist murderous person. I don't know what facts have been revealed that support him having a mental illness.
I think the line of reasoning is basically I would never murder anyone, much less 9 people, therefore he must be mentally ill. There's no indication in any of the reports I've read that he was anything but a horrible racist within a community that enabled his racism.
No it is more murder and racism are social cancer and labeling it as a mental illness might be a push in the right direction for reform. But as we have seen here doing so comes with a ton of stigma attached to it because of how messed up our mental health system is really.
Wow son we don't have a messed up mental health system in our country and I still think labelling murder and racism as mental illness is stupid. Because it is.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
It already is. That's the point.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
It already is. That's the point.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
I've a question for you. If the shooter lived at home with his dad, would you want to make it illegal for guns to be in that house because of the felony charge?
I think it would be extremely difficult to pin the father for accessory to murder.
Even so he did knowingly commit two separate crimes that he should be charged for.
I think it's just one crime; I don't think he was a Federal PP, but just a SC PP at the time. But still, it was already not legal and this is down in the weeds.
I think it could be argued that he both purchased the firearm for someone he knew to be prohibited (straw purchase) as well as knowingly transferred a firearm to a prohibited person.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
It already is. That's the point.
Yeah laws don't prevent all crimes, guys.
Well shit. Get rid of laws.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.
What a fucking stupid law.
No. It is a bigoted, racist, and disgusting law, but it is not stupid by any means. By removing the power to control whether or not the flag flies from the state executive, it makes it so there is no one point of influence, while giving the governor political cover.
It's brilliantly evil.
This flies against 11 years of service for me. The idea that the executive doesn't control a flag is crazy to me.
And I do understand why it's unfortunately the case. Just... dammit that's not the tradition!
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
Who is saying this?
me
when I misread something
also does anyone know if the father is going to be charged? Or anything?
Well that's a thing. Guess they can't lower the flag (unlike every other state and federal flag) without a vote in the state legislature. Governor doesn't have that authority. It flies full height by law.
What a fucking stupid law.
No. It is a bigoted, racist, and disgusting law, but it is not stupid by any means. By removing the power to control whether or not the flag flies from the state executive, it makes it so there is no one point of influence, while giving the governor political cover.
It's brilliantly evil.
This flies against 11 years of service for me. The idea that the executive doesn't control a flag is crazy to me.
And I do understand why it's unfortunately the case. Just... dammit that's not the tradition!
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
It already is. That's the point.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
I've a question for you. If the shooter lived at home with his dad, would you want to make it illegal for guns to be in that house because of the felony charge?
It is if a case of constructive possession can be made.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
It already is. That's the point.
Yeah laws don't prevent all crimes, guys.
How much crime do you think laws prevent?
Between 0 and 100%
At some point you have all the laws that are reasonable and there are still going to be people who break them. It's regrettable but demanding more laws at that point isn't a good idea.
Now that doesn't mean you can't do something. In this case it might be that people are not well aware of the law, or the sentences are too mild, or other laws on a different level aren't working. And you can fix that to reduce crime and stuff.
Someone breaking the law isn't a failure of the law is my point basically.
I would say yes if you live with someone convicted of a felony you should not be allowed to own firearms at your house.
"Living with" is not the same as "access", but there's actually a ton of case law on this question, because it's a common situation with apartments and rental housing. Not everyone can afford to own a house.
Bottom line, it's illegal if someone wants to arrest you for it.
It's really beyond the scope of what we're talking about here.
I think it would be extremely difficult to pin the father for accessory to murder.
They should still try.
Nah, if they don't have evidence to actually charge a person with a crime (or a person's actions, while reprehensible, don't fit the elements of the crime), they should not try.
How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?
Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?
You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.
To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.
Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.
I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.
Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.
I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.
I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.
I brought this up specifically because people weren't satisfied with saying the media was trying to distract from the issue. People in this thread were deciding it's not at all a factor, some people are just "broken," and deserves to suffer.
Which I find more than a little unsettling.
Well I certainly hope that you don't think I think that! Cause I don't.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
It already is. That's the point.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
I've a question for you. If the shooter lived at home with his dad, would you want to make it illegal for guns to be in that house because of the felony charge?
Many felons on probation have conditions that they cannot live somewhere firearms are present. It can also be a condition of release on a pending case.
The court doesn't have jurisdiction to tell the person the felon lives with to get rid of their guns, but they can arrest the felon on a probation violation for staying somewhere that guns are found.
And yes, if the person has guns in their "constructive possession" when it is illegal for them to do so, they could get charged with a new crime.
How would mental health service enhancements have prevented this tragedy?
Can you go to therapy for being a huge racist?
You can certainly go to therapy for having urges to commit acts of violence or a strong desire to kill people.
To seek help for a problem you have to admit you have one. I don't believe based on his actions Dylann considered being a huge admitted racist as a problem. Also his friends from the gawker link didn't seem to think it was an issue, and nor did his father who bought him a pistol for his birthday.
Maybe, maybe not! Kind of irrelevant to the question.
I think it's entirely relevant that no one in his life thought he had a mental illness or thought that his racism was an issue to be concerned about, or reported anything to anyone.
Yes no one in his life thought he had a mental illness. Our education on the topic and services offered are also atrocious so I kinda sorta think that should be considered a factor.
I guess, no matter how many times you say "it can be both!", I'm still of the opinion that immediately labeling this person mentally ill takes away from putting his racism in the spotlight as the motivating factor for his actions. It also takes away from the discussion of systemic and cultural racism in the community he lived in. You cannot install a mental health clinic there to prevent this. You have to have the harder conversation about cultural and systemic white supremacy.
I know you are not intending to, but time and time again these type of deflections distract from the underlying huge issue we still have with racism in this country. Also it doesn't sound factually supported to me to claim he has a mental illness, at this point.
I brought this up specifically because people weren't satisfied with saying the media was trying to distract from the issue. People in this thread were deciding it's not at all a factor, some people are just "broken," and deserves to suffer.
Which I find more than a little unsettling.
Well I certainly hope that you don't think I think that! Cause I don't.
I don't at all! You never said anything approaching that.
Simply pointing out why I brought it up at all. I agree the media is shitty with how they use the concept of mental illness. I simply don't want people to be shitty with it going in the other direction.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
And this is exactly why I'm concerned about gun control (and mental health, to a lesser extent) getting involved. I admit I'm part of the problem here, but look at what happened to the thread. And we're all generally reasonable people.
We already told the future on what will happen Jothki. Nothing will be done for mental healthcare except slash the budget to provide a tax cut, and the previous restriction on guns in church's will be lifted so that the next time a good guy with a gun will totally save the day.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
That's ridiculously reductive.
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
Giving a gun to someone you know couldn't buy it themselves should make you an accessory to whatever crimes the person commits with the weapon.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
And this being the U.S. I know it would be used as another excuse to hassle minorities.
And this is exactly why I'm concerned about gun control (and mental health, to a lesser extent) getting involved. I admit I'm part of the problem here, but look at what happened to the thread. And we're all generally reasonable people.
Ignoring those issues isn't going fix anything, though. It might make it worse because the NRA and their supporters aren't going to stop influencing the laws.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
This feels like another "Gun exceptionalism" thing. Commercial businesses are often inspected by regulators to ensure they are complying with various laws and regulations. I have to go out of my way to have my vehicle inspected once a year to ensure it is complying with various laws and regulations. Child Protective Services (and accompanying police officer) can conduct a visit of my home and interview my children without me at any time.
All of those are good things and very accepted in American society. But if you were to do the same thing with guns, suddenly we're treating people like they are on probation. Because guns are exceptional, or something.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
The issue of course is that racism picked his target, the gun let him do it. Sure there is the "swimming pools, cars, seatbelts, asteroids Kill *blank* amount of people" argument, but without a pistol I doubt this brain surgeon kills anyone aside from himself making a bomb.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In SC, it's illegal to possess a gun while awaiting trial on a felony charge. That didn't seem to stop his father from illegally giving him a gun.
I'd like to know what sort of gun law would stop a father, who presumably isn't otherwise a criminal, from illegally giving a gun to his son, who is already prohibited from possessing it.
It's also illegal in SC to carry a gun into a church, even with a valid permit, without special permission. So that's yet another mass shooting in a gun-free zone. So..... :?
A given law failing to prevent this incident is not reason to fail to enact any meaningful gun control legislation.
I think the point is that in this specific situation, no amount of meaningful gun control legislation wouldn't made a difference short of an all out ban on all firearms and a subsequent forced collection program followed by their destruction.
This was a man who received a handgun from his father. It's not possible to legislate that away.
Okay? Can we still look at legislation that might prevent other situations unlike this one in the future?
The only thing that will happen by turning this into another gun control debate is to allow the people who don't want to talk about the obvious racism issue in this country an easy out.
Do you mean in this thread or the public in general? In the scope of this thread I'm comfortable leaving the gun control side out of it if that's the general preference. My point to TheZK's post was that being unable to legislate a single situation away shouldn't proclude any future legislation on gun control because it wouldn't have been effective here. I obviously don't want it to distract from the other causes.
If you acknowledge that gun control legislation couldn't have stopped this particular situation, but still want to use it to push for gun control anyway, you're literally falling into that "you're just exploiting a tragedy" trap that people who neither want to face this country's racist issues or gun issues want you to fall for. The gun control debate is an important one, but taking the general discussion of this heinous event away from the obvious racist motivations doesn't help.
Other people in this thread are talking about how everyone in his community more or less brushed off the warning signs, yet we've also seen arguments for expanded mental health care, as it's a possible contributing factor. Is that exploitative of the tragedy? Only discussing retroactive solutions to this specific tragedy seems awfully short sighted. I've said before I don't want any single factor to completely detract from what seems to be the main driving issue behind the event, which was quite obviously racism. We can talk about other causes, and means to prevent future tragedies in general, no?
Since the only way mental health care could have helped prevent this is to make being a giant racist asshole a mental disorder and a PR campaign designed to convince everyone to start turning their racist asshole friends & family in for mental health screenings, no, I don't think it's helpful in this situation. This attack is a result of the pervasive racism issue in this country. Trying to make it about gun control and mental health is confusing the issue and allowing the people who least want to discuss racism an easy way to deflect the conversation.
So essentially yes, you only want to discuss what would have solved this situation.
EDIT: Calming my post down a little bit, I am coming across too hostile, I apologize.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
Are you listening to yourself right now? Why would you come to a thread specifically marked 'The Modern Domestic Terrorism: 9 Dead At Historic Black Church' and assume we wouldn't be talking about a way to prevent this specific scenario?
Also what gun law besides mandatory background checks for the relatives of those pursuing gun ownership and outright banning of guns(both things which would never pass Congress) would prevent this? Like seriously? This feels like it's detracting from the overall conversation.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
This feels like another "Gun exceptionalism" thing. Commercial businesses are often inspected by regulators to ensure they are complying with various laws and regulations. I have to go out of my way to have my vehicle inspected once a year to ensure it is complying with various laws and regulations. Child Protective Services (and accompanying police officer) can conduct a visit of my home and interview my children without me at any time.
All of those are good things and very accepted in American society. But if you were to do the same thing with guns, suddenly we're treating people like they are on probation. Because guns are exceptional, or something.
I would be all for some kind of regularly scheduled thing to make sure that all the firearms registered to someone are still in their possession and are still in legal condition, and that if they were given to someone else there is a proper paper trail of it.
What was suggested was something that implied police could show up to people's homes and search it to make sure that everything is still above-board, simply because they owned a weapon.
Well I'm sure if it was harder to get a gun in america perhaps this racist wouldn't have been able to commit the crime he's accused of...
You mean we need to find a way to make it more difficult for a father to give his son a gift?
No we need to find a way to make it more difficult for that gift to be a gun.
I don't think it's unreasonable for police to pay visits to registered gun owners to ensure they are the ones that possess the weapon, haven't made illegal modifications, and load it with legal ammunition.
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
This feels like another "Gun exceptionalism" thing. Commercial businesses are often inspected by regulators to ensure they are complying with various laws and regulations. I have to go out of my way to have my vehicle inspected once a year to ensure it is complying with various laws and regulations. Child Protective Services (and accompanying police officer) can conduct a visit of my home and interview my children without me at any time.
All of those are good things and very accepted in American society. But if you were to do the same thing with guns, suddenly we're treating people like they are on probation. Because guns are exceptional, or something.
I would be all for some kind of regularly scheduled thing to make sure that all the firearms registered to someone are still in their possession and are still in legal condition, and that if they were given to someone else there is a proper paper trail of it.
What was suggested was something that implied police could show up to people's homes and search it to make sure that everything is still above-board, simply because they owned a weapon.
Maybe they should be required to show up and have them inspected at a police station once a year.
Posts
Is it? He received the gun in question as a birthday gift from his father while awaiting a felony charge that would have prevented him from buying it for himself. The only way gun control legislation would have helped prevent this would be by making it illegal for friends & family of a person awaiting a felony charge to purchase a firearm.
If there was some reasonable gun control legislation that could have prevented this from happening, I'd be all for talking about it. But that's not the case here and I'm more concerned with that discussion taking over the more general public discussion.
No seriously, anyone getting arrested for it would be basically a hero at this point and lol at the court for trying to punish them
That is illegal every other time it happens. Why not this time.
No. It is a bigoted, racist, and disgusting law, but it is not stupid by any means. By removing the power to control whether or not the flag flies from the state executive, it makes it so there is no one point of influence, while giving the governor political cover.
It's brilliantly evil.
Wow son we don't have a messed up mental health system in our country and I still think labelling murder and racism as mental illness is stupid. Because it is.
It already is. That's the point.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
I've a question for you. If the shooter lived at home with his dad, would you want to make it illegal for guns to be in that house because of the felony charge?
I think it could be argued that he both purchased the firearm for someone he knew to be prohibited (straw purchase) as well as knowingly transferred a firearm to a prohibited person.
Yeah laws don't prevent all crimes, guys.
Well shit. Get rid of laws.
How much crime do you think laws prevent?
Who is saying this?
This flies against 11 years of service for me. The idea that the executive doesn't control a flag is crazy to me.
And I do understand why it's unfortunately the case. Just... dammit that's not the tradition!
me
when I misread something
also does anyone know if the father is going to be charged? Or anything?
One might even refer to it as...peculiar.
It is if a case of constructive possession can be made.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Between 0 and 100%
At some point you have all the laws that are reasonable and there are still going to be people who break them. It's regrettable but demanding more laws at that point isn't a good idea.
Now that doesn't mean you can't do something. In this case it might be that people are not well aware of the law, or the sentences are too mild, or other laws on a different level aren't working. And you can fix that to reduce crime and stuff.
Someone breaking the law isn't a failure of the law is my point basically.
"Living with" is not the same as "access", but there's actually a ton of case law on this question, because it's a common situation with apartments and rental housing. Not everyone can afford to own a house.
Bottom line, it's illegal if someone wants to arrest you for it.
It's really beyond the scope of what we're talking about here.
Nah, if they don't have evidence to actually charge a person with a crime (or a person's actions, while reprehensible, don't fit the elements of the crime), they should not try.
Well I certainly hope that you don't think I think that! Cause I don't.
Many felons on probation have conditions that they cannot live somewhere firearms are present. It can also be a condition of release on a pending case.
The court doesn't have jurisdiction to tell the person the felon lives with to get rid of their guns, but they can arrest the felon on a probation violation for staying somewhere that guns are found.
And yes, if the person has guns in their "constructive possession" when it is illegal for them to do so, they could get charged with a new crime.
I don't at all! You never said anything approaching that.
Simply pointing out why I brought it up at all. I agree the media is shitty with how they use the concept of mental illness. I simply don't want people to be shitty with it going in the other direction.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's not an isolated incident. It's part of the ongoing persecution of religion by the liberal agenda.
Thanks Julius, the brain cells I just lost will be missed by my offspring.
pleasepaypreacher.net
that is sarcasm right?
You're a minority in thinking that isn't unreasonable. What you're proposing is treating all gun owners as though they are on probation.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
pleasepaypreacher.net
Giving a gun to someone you know couldn't buy it themselves should make you an accessory to whatever crimes the person commits with the weapon.
The father enabled these crimes
And this being the U.S. I know it would be used as another excuse to hassle minorities.
Ignoring those issues isn't going fix anything, though. It might make it worse because the NRA and their supporters aren't going to stop influencing the laws.
This feels like another "Gun exceptionalism" thing. Commercial businesses are often inspected by regulators to ensure they are complying with various laws and regulations. I have to go out of my way to have my vehicle inspected once a year to ensure it is complying with various laws and regulations. Child Protective Services (and accompanying police officer) can conduct a visit of my home and interview my children without me at any time.
All of those are good things and very accepted in American society. But if you were to do the same thing with guns, suddenly we're treating people like they are on probation. Because guns are exceptional, or something.
I think you may be misunderstanding why I feel this way. Of course we need a serious discussion of mental health in this country. And of course we need a serious discussion of gun control. Those are both huge issues that deserve our attention. But in this situation (given what we currently know about it), neither of those topics seem to be all that helpful in understanding why and how this happened. The why and how of this particular tragedy is pretty clearly racism. So that's where the conversation needs to focus. By turning this into another gun control debate, you're giving the people who want to continue to ignore the real issue an easy way out. Nothing is going to end a discussion of the racial problems this country has faster than "you libby libs will exploit any tragedy to try to steal all our guns". I'd just like to see atleast the start of a meaningful discussion in the wake of another abhorrent "isolated incident". And the only way that's going to happen is if the discussion stays focused on the obvious cause.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why did this happen: Racism
How did this happen: With a gun
Are you listening to yourself right now? Why would you come to a thread specifically marked 'The Modern Domestic Terrorism: 9 Dead At Historic Black Church' and assume we wouldn't be talking about a way to prevent this specific scenario?
Also what gun law besides mandatory background checks for the relatives of those pursuing gun ownership and outright banning of guns(both things which would never pass Congress) would prevent this? Like seriously? This feels like it's detracting from the overall conversation.
I would be all for some kind of regularly scheduled thing to make sure that all the firearms registered to someone are still in their possession and are still in legal condition, and that if they were given to someone else there is a proper paper trail of it.
What was suggested was something that implied police could show up to people's homes and search it to make sure that everything is still above-board, simply because they owned a weapon.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe they should be required to show up and have them inspected at a police station once a year.