Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it common sense? Clear backpacks would not have prevented this from happening. It would not have prevented Columbine or Sandy Hook from happening. So what is the point of clear backpacks?
I think it is an necessary step IMMEDIATELY following the tragedy, to prevent copy cat mass shooting.
The point is NOT if this is common sense approach, (although I believe it is) the point is his common sense approach and mine just don't match. I don't believe banning ar-15 is the solution either.
Deputies called to suspected shooter’s home 39 times over seven years, nothing has been done.
but somebody believe taking AR15 from everybody is the answer. The sad news is that they can never be able to get rid of AR15, there are so many unregistered guns out there.
The police had no legal recourse as shown by the source of the person you are quoting. In that instance the person refused to press charges. So the police cannot even arrest him let alone address the fact he has guns and is threatening people.
That is exactly the type of gun law I would like to see. One giving the power to police to actually do something when they have responded to multiple calls like those made regarding Nikolas Cruz.
I have never advocated for taking guns away from everyone. Just people who make threats, like Nikolas Cruz.
The police had no legal recourse as shown by the source of the person you are quoting. In that instance the person refused to press charges. So the police cannot even arrest him let alone address the fact he has guns and is threatening people.
That is exactly the type of gun law I would like to see. One giving the power to police to actually do something when they have responded to multiple calls like those made regarding Nikolas Cruz.
I have never advocated for taking guns away from everyone. Just people who make threats, like Nikolas Cruz.
Yeah, I have to say I agree.
I think the focus should be "taking guns away from the wrong hands." I agree with your last paragraph, 100%
When people make the threat, (kill themselves of others) it should always be taken seriously.
The police had no legal recourse as shown by the source of the person you are quoting. In that instance the person refused to press charges. So the police cannot even arrest him let alone address the fact he has guns and is threatening people.
That is exactly the type of gun law I would like to see. One giving the power to police to actually do something when they have responded to multiple calls like those made regarding Nikolas Cruz.
I have never advocated for taking guns away from everyone. Just people who make threats, like Nikolas Cruz.
Difficult grounds. If the DA says he will not prosecute, then the police cannot arrest. To do so is harassment at least and probably grounds for a lawsuit.
I've been there. Had a government theft case inside a research facility. We had the evidence but the DA told us he would not go to court unless he had an eye witness.
I was absolutely furious, I wanted to do something to let that guy know we were over him.....but I was told hands off, if the DA says no, there is nothing you can do.
Admittedly in the years afterwards, I see it slightly different now. To arrest someone that you know the DA is not going to prosecute, to take their photo, their fingerprints, to create a record of them in the system......is wrong in a free country.
Does not change the fact that full grown men think it is acceptable to bully teenaged girls for being a member of the LGBTQ community. And is evidence for the extremes of bullying that can happen to those in that community.
Difficult grounds. If the DA says he will not prosecute, then the police cannot arrest. To do so is harassment at least and probably grounds for a lawsuit.
I've been there. Had a government theft case inside a research facility. We had the evidence but the DA told us he would not go to court unless he had an eye witness.
I was absolutely furious, I wanted to do something to let that guy know we were over him.....but I was told hands off, if the DA says no, there is nothing you can do.
Admittedly in the years afterwards, I see it slightly different now. To arrest someone that you know the DA is not going to prosecute, to take their photo, their fingerprints, to create a record of them in the system......is wrong in a free country.
The police cannot arrest when there is no complainant. The DA cannot press charges when no one will file. It is super easy to point fingers at the police for responding to call but in the source provided from another poster no one would press charges.
Police and others in a position to know should be able to flag background checks without waiting for a court case when someone has a history of making threats even if they have not been convicted. That person should have the ability to prove that they are not actually a danger to the community but after threatening to kill people, you should no longer have the privilege of owning a gun without a mental health check.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
