5 dead, 6 injured in Bank Shooting

[Pink Cashmere]

Apr 13, 2023 15:49:55 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Apr 13, 2023 14:02:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

in terms of federal law, that doesn't matter.
it is against the law for a crazy person to own a gun in the US.
that will prevent them from being even more of a danger to themselves, if that is what you are suggesting.  unless, of course, we really like the idea of crazy people offing themselves and others with guns.  maybe that is why nothing ever happens on this.

The people who probably know best if someone is crazy are family members. And most likely, family members are mostly loathe to notify authorities they have a crazy person in the family and that (s)he owns firearms.

The crazy ones walk amongst us and we are not safe.

I’ve read that the shooter’s Mom called 911 and said that she’d learned secondhand that her son was headed to that bank, with a gun. Even though it was her own child, she still tried to do the right thing and report what she’d learned secondhand. I have a lot of respect for her doing that.

I have children myself, but if I had reason to believe one of them was getting ready to do something like that, I would do the same thing. I’d rather my child be stopped before harming other people, and even if they got arrested, as long as they are still alive, there is a chance that they can get to a better place mentally. As much as I love my children, I can’t imagine sitting by and doing nothing, if I knew they intended to kill people, even if I learned about it second hand, like this Mother did.

[Deleted]

On the audio of the mother's call to 911 that I heard today, the 911 dispatcher asked the mother if her son had a gun and she clearly said, "No".  It seems she was unaware that he had purchased it.  Would it have changed the outcome if she had known?  Probably not.  Like Pink, I applaud her trying to help everyone involved in a horrific situation.  

[Opti]

Apr 13, 2023 8:27:10 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

This country has no interest, either morally or financially, in dealing with the mental health crisis. 

To deal with the large systemic issues that lead to people feeling disaffected and hopeless enough to murder fellow citizens you have to deal with just how broken our capitalistic meat grinder of a society is. There is zero chance that happens. 

We will just keep on keeping on and shrugging our shoulders. 

I think also its convenient and lazy for people to assume fixing mental health is going to make mass shootings or even excess shootings in the US go away. Mental health is a continuum and it varies. Just like being a criminal. One day X is law abiding and the next day X decides to commit a crime. These last two shooters I have a feeling were not long term violent to others. Something triggered them and then they decided to commit a mass shooting. Mental health screens for gun ownership would not have prevented the religious school shooting or this one in MHO. There was a time too, that workplace shootings were common enough that going postal became a shorthand is discussing the shootings and the feeling around them.

What would help is restricting all gun buyers from owning AR-15s and similar. But the gun lobby, the red states, and others want their toys more than they want the US to be safe for most its citizens. Not all that different from the red states and true forced birth believers thinking forcing women to give birth is more important than dying women, dead & dying fetuses, or continuing the poverty cycle.


 

[Pink Cashmere]

Apr 13, 2023 16:42:48 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

On the audio of the mother's call to 911 that I heard today, the 911 dispatcher asked the mother if her son had a gun and she clearly said, "No".  It seems she was unaware that he had purchased it.  Would it have changed the outcome if she had known?  Probably not.  Like Pink, I applaud her trying to help everyone involved in a horrific situation.  

What I read, I seem to recall that she did say he had a gun, but I could be not remembering that correctly. I haven’t listen to the audio, so I admit I could be mistaken. 

Either way, I feel like she tried to do what she felt was right, and was actually right, even though it was her own child she was concerned might be intent on harming other people. I have a lot of respect for her for that. It didn’t change the outcome, obviously, since he did kill some people. I can’t imagine living with the horror that a child born from my womb doing something like that. I pray for her and her family, and I pray for the victims and their families. 

[Opti]

Apr 13, 2023 16:42:48 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

On the audio of the mother's call to 911 that I heard today, the 911 dispatcher asked the mother if her son had a gun and she clearly said, "No".  It seems she was unaware that he had purchased it.  Would it have changed the outcome if she had known?  Probably not.  Like Pink, I applaud her trying to help everyone involved in a horrific situation.  

Not unlike the mother of the other recent shooter. She was even pro gun control. I wish people would remember that humans are multi-dimensional and humans hide affairs and other families for years. Why do we think the family would know if shooter to be Z purchased a gun in the past week?

[Deleted]

Apr 13, 2023 17:43:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Apr 13, 2023 16:42:48 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

On the audio of the mother's call to 911 that I heard today, the 911 dispatcher asked the mother if her son had a gun and she clearly said, "No".  It seems she was unaware that he had purchased it.  Would it have changed the outcome if she had known?  Probably not.  Like Pink, I applaud her trying to help everyone involved in a horrific situation.  

Not unlike the mother of the other recent shooter. She was even pro gun control. I wish people would remember that humans are multi-dimensional and humans hide affairs and other families for years. Why do we think the family would know if shooter to be Z purchased a gun in the past week?

Unless the individual is living at home, especially if a minor, I can see how the family would not know.  

[djAdvocate]

Apr 13, 2023 18:36:34 GMT -5 soupandstew said:

Apr 13, 2023 17:43:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Not unlike the mother of the other recent shooter. She was even pro gun control. I wish people would remember that humans are multi-dimensional and humans hide affairs and other families for years. Why do we think the family would know if shooter to be Z purchased a gun in the past week?

Unless the individual is living at home, especially if a minor, I can see how the family would not know.  

even then, how many kids stole their parents guns for these shoot ups?
quite a few.

[happyhoix]

Apr 13, 2023 9:38:29 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Apr 13, 2023 8:54:45 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

True, but why is that question not asked when they trot out the "mental health" excuse?  If you have anyone in your family or know anyone that does....you cannot get mental health help if you are mentally ill.  You can't keep a job where you will have health insurance and afford the help and the meds.  

One of my friends has been dealing with this for years.  Her son will do good for a while, then go off his meds, lose his job and apartment until she can get him stabilized again.  He one of the lucky ones that has parents who have recourses to do that.  

But there is not one thing that could keep him from buying a gun.  

I just want to know if they believe this "mental health" excuse, what is their solution to solve it.  

They don't have one. First, they don't care. Second, it would require some form of "socialism" to actually deal with mental illness, AKA "National Health Insurance". Third, it would interfere with their ability to get whatever gun they want right now. Can't have that. SO, we are left with "thoughts and prayers".

Until we love our children more than our guns, we are left with the status quo.

Yes number 3.

I remember a pro gun member of this board who years ago said that he would never agree to being able to call the cops and put someone on a ‘no gun’ list because that meant if he got in a fight with his wife the cops could seize his weapons and that was a violation of his rights.

So basically his right to be armed 100% of the time was more important than a parent being able to keep their kid from legally purchase an assault weapon and attacking a school.

[Spellbound454]

What would help is restricting all gun buyers from owning AR-15s and similar. But the gun lobby, the red states, and others want their toys more than they want the US to be safe for most its citizens

You'll know about this already, but a quick wiki look would seem you did have an assault rifle ban from 1994 - 2004
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

but the legislation expired ... and no analysis was made of the impact on mass shootings. Why ever not?

AR-15 was then rebranded as a "modern sporting rifle" and ownership soared... partially bolstered by the "they tried to take our guns away" belligerence.

(I'm not sure how much sport is involved in shooting game with a semi automatic)

I think you'll struggle to get that legislation through again especially see as it has not been proven to make a difference and there are now more rifles in circulation than there was before.

[tallguy]

Apr 14, 2023 3:47:07 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

What would help is restricting all gun buyers from owning AR-15s and similar. But the gun lobby, the red states, and others want their toys more than they want the US to be safe for most its citizens

You'll know about this already, but a quick wiki look would seem you did have an assault rifle ban from 1994 - 2004
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

but the legislation expired ... and no analysis was made of the impact on mass shootings. Why ever not?

AR-15 was then rebranded as a "modern sporting rifle" and ownership soared... partially bolstered by the "they tried to take our guns away" belligerence.

(I'm not sure how much sport is involved in shooting game with a semi automatic)

I think you'll struggle to get that legislation through again especially see as it has not been proven to make a difference and there are now more rifles in circulation than there was before.

There were some studies done, despite the fact that a Republican Congress had prohibited the government (via the CDC) from doing any research on gun crimes for over two decades, under the rationale that they did not want to in any way support gun control and feared that actually studying gun crimes and deaths would give strong evidence that guns should be limited or banned.  The studies that were done did show a significant decrease in mass shooting incidents and deaths during the period the limited ban was in effect.  Overall gun deaths did not decrease that much since the vast majority of those do not happen during mass shootings.  There was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting incidents and deaths once the ban expired.  That rate has now skyrocketed during the last several years.  So yes, it DID make a difference.  And yes, if Republican legislators were more concerned with the lives and safety of their citizens rather than knuckling under to the dictates (and the campaign contributions) of the NRA, to say nothing of trying to avoid being targeted so that they can keep their jobs, we COULD bring some common sense back to the subject. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 14, 2023 3:47:07 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

What would help is restricting all gun buyers from owning AR-15s and similar. But the gun lobby, the red states, and others want their toys more than they want the US to be safe for most its citizens

You'll know about this already, but a quick wiki look would seem you did have an assault rifle ban from 1994 - 2004
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

but the legislation expired ... and no analysis was made of the impact on mass shootings. Why ever not?

AR-15 was then rebranded as a "modern sporting rifle" and ownership soared... partially bolstered by the "they tried to take our guns away" belligerence.

(I'm not sure how much sport is involved in shooting game with a semi automatic)

I think you'll struggle to get that legislation through again especially see as it has not been proven to make a difference and there are now more rifles in circulation than there was before.

you sure about that?  i am not.  i think evidence suggests otherwise.  strongly.

[Opti]

Apr 15, 2023 16:27:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Apr 14, 2023 3:47:07 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

You'll know about this already, but a quick wiki look would seem you did have an assault rifle ban from 1994 - 2004
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

but the legislation expired ... and no analysis was made of the impact on mass shootings. Why ever not?

AR-15 was then rebranded as a "modern sporting rifle" and ownership soared... partially bolstered by the "they tried to take our guns away" belligerence.

(I'm not sure how much sport is involved in shooting game with a semi automatic)

I think you'll struggle to get that legislation through again especially see as it has not been proven to make a difference and there are now more rifles in circulation than there was before.

you sure about that?  i am not.  i think evidence suggests otherwise.  strongly.

I think its also the reason that the Trump administration or whomever decided to make it against the law to study the effects of guns on the population or similar.

I think the evidence suggests strongly that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and its so destructive that it is rare for a child or even an adult to survive being shot by one. One of the last shooters had a 100% kill rate at that religious school and I am certain it was the gun not the shooter's ability that made it so, much like Uvalde.

[tallguy]

Apr 15, 2023 21:26:47 GMT -5 Opti said:

Apr 15, 2023 16:27:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you sure about that?  i am not.  i think evidence suggests otherwise.  strongly.

I think its also the reason that the Trump administration or whomever decided to make it against the law to study the effects of guns on the population or similar.

I think the evidence suggests strongly that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and its so destructive that it is rare for a child or even an adult to survive being shot by one. One of the last shooters had a 100% kill rate at that religious school and I am certain it was the gun not the shooter's ability that made it so, much like Uvalde.

As I said earlier, it had been over two decades since the CDC had been forced to abandon research on guns and gun violence.  1996, I believe.

[Opti]

Apr 15, 2023 21:35:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Apr 15, 2023 21:26:47 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think its also the reason that the Trump administration or whomever decided to make it against the law to study the effects of guns on the population or similar.

I think the evidence suggests strongly that the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters, and its so destructive that it is rare for a child or even an adult to survive being shot by one. One of the last shooters had a 100% kill rate at that religious school and I am certain it was the gun not the shooter's ability that made it so, much like Uvalde.

As I said earlier, it had been over two decades since the CDC had been forced to abandon research on guns and gun violence.  1996, I believe.

Sorry, started at post 40 tonight, OK? I'm sick and not sleeping so cut me a break! 

[tallguy]

Apr 15, 2023 22:10:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Apr 15, 2023 21:35:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

As I said earlier, it had been over two decades since the CDC had been forced to abandon research on guns and gun violence.  1996, I believe.

Sorry, started at post 40 tonight, OK? I'm sick and not sleeping so cut me a break! 

Gee, if only you had started at post 39....  

[Opti]

Apr 15, 2023 22:24:36 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Apr 15, 2023 22:10:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sorry, started at post 40 tonight, OK? I'm sick and not sleeping so cut me a break! 

Gee, if only you had started at post 39....  

Then you wouldn't have abused me, but such is reality. 

[busymom]

I saw this on Facebook today, and think this is a brilliant idea.  Imagine sending this to every politician who is voting against tightening gun laws:

[Pink Cashmere]

Because the assault weapons are already out there, I wonder if it will help even a little if we banned or severely restricted, the sale of bullets for them. Somehow make it difficult to get bullets, so maybe it will at least slow down people who wake up and decide today is a good day to go buy an assault rifle and go on a killing spree.

It may be a stupid idea, but we HAVE to come up with something. I was taught in my CLUE classes as a child, that when brainstorming, you include even the ideas that seem far fetched when trying to solve a problem. Sometimes the far fetched ideas can morph into something that is realistic. At least that’s what my CLUE teachers told me….