Nashville

7.62 said:

Let the spin begin.
Told ya…

Trans activists slam 'radical religious schools' after shooting

Two trans activists are demanding the end of the conservative 'love affair' with 'radical religious schools' in a response to the Nashville mass shooting.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Not even a full day and these people are already blaming everyone else and their beliefs instead of the shooter.

Click to expand...

Shawn is Correct.

Pepe, very sorry for your loss. I can't imagine the pain.

I continue to believe it is a problem with mental illness, as I and every other gun owner I know cannot imagine killing anyone let alone children.

I think our culture has destigmatized mental illness to a degree that is completely unhealthy. While I think it's admirable for people to feel they should seek help when needed, mental illness seems to be an identity for many people today. It's no surprise that after the great majority of these shootings, the perpetrator is a very obviously disturbed person.

I have to submit fingerprints, a passport photo and go through a lengthy FBI background check when purchasing a SBR. But someone who is being treated for SERIOUS and dangerous mental illnesses like bi-polar, schitzophrenia, etc. is allowed to walk in and buy provided they haven't been involuntarily hospitalized. Meaning they could check out of the looney bin and buy an AR15 on their way home.

The Government has a database of guys like me, but not the mentally ill? I just think that is nuts.

TacticalSpeed said:

What?! Whatever the "middle ground" ends up being it most certainly has a lot to do with firearms and stopping these people from buying them & then shooting up a mall or school, etc.

We need something done w/the background check system, we need to do real work on jailing the FFL holders that knowingly sell to folks that they should not, we need a huge amount of work done to our mental healthcare system in this country & much more...

People also need to stop arguing nonsense just because of a political party affiliation. We are better working together, not against each other over nonsense.

Click to expand...

I think the biggest problem with the background check system at the moment is the lack of ability to process "hold" checks. By default, if those holds aren't reviewed in 3 days (if memory serves) they're greenlit for sale. A protection like that makes sense; it prevents the FBI from just putting a background check on hold indefinitely. But the result is that last year, something like a million guns were sold from FFLs without a properly completed background check. That needs to be balanced better. Why can't FBI complete these checks in time? If they're so strapped for time and manpower, what are they doing that ranks higher on the priority list than reviewing background checks?

FFLs may be part of the problem, but so are police and gun thefts. Let's make it illegal to leave a gun in a car alone, even if the car is locked. If you're going into a place that prohibits guns, they must provide secure storage while you're on the premises. Prosecute unlawful gun sellers, whether police, FFL, or otherwise, for aiding and abetting crimes committed with the guns they sold. That'll get people who are just careless to tighten up their act real quick, but of course won't stop those hell-bent on profiteering no matter the cost.

Like my previous post said, I'm all on board with mental health improvement. Frankly I don't in theory dislike the idea of mental health screening prior to purchase, but I do see a few problems with that, not the least of which being activist psychologists and/or psychologists that are afraid of being sued, either by a would-be gun buyer or by a victim of a crime. I don't know how, or even if there is a way, to implement a mental health check system that wouldn't be easily subject to exploitation.

One thing I think we could do better at is taking a "yes and" approach to some propositions. For example: yes, red flag laws, and if someone abuses a red flag law's reporting system, they open themselves up to liability. That leaves the system in place for those that are truly in need for it while potentially dissuading the filing of fraudulent claims. (Please do not take this as an endorsement of red flag laws as they currently exist on my part; there are due process and takings concerns to be resolved there.) Or yes, safe storage laws, and the government will subsidize the purchase of robust and actually useful gun safes so every gun owner isn't stuck footing a multi-thousand dollar bill just to comply with the laws.

PI Lawyer said:

I got a look at the weapons this shooter had on her. The one she is holding as she moves through the school is a Kel-Tec 9mm carbine set up for Glock mags. She also had a handgun and an AR variant, but it is unclear if she used anything but the Kel-Tec she was holding in the surveillance video, other than the pistol to suicide herself.

Click to expand...

She was holding the AR pistol at one point. I saw one of the released surveillance videos; at timestamp 10:13 she was holding the AR; it then jumped forward to 10:18 and she had switched to the KelTec. One thing I've been wondering about is why these shooters tend to bring multiple rifles to a shooting. Uvalde, Highland Park, and Greenwood all involved shooters carrying multiple rifles. To me, it reeks of copycatting.