Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-28-2018, 07:12 AM
 
Location: The 719
18,046 posts, read 27,501,143 times
Reputation: 17358

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog View Post
Thoughts and prayers for sure, yup yup, but also concern for Chicago this weekend. How many were shot up there? I've only heard about this horrific event on the news over and over again. A great big world to cover.

Glad to hear two less dead than they had originally reported. Glad the shooter can harm no one else ever again.



I'm all for laws of this country, especially ones already established.

I would imagine following the laws already on the books would go a long way to ensuring our safety.

Take immigration laws for instance. If we spend less time politicizing and weaponization of these laws, letting law enforcement do their jobs, things would improve.

If the FBI for instance would spend 5 minutes less time texting love letters to each other and spend that on following up on actual suspicious activity, we'd all benefit.
In Chicago, 28 were shot and two were killed. That's the last info I found on that and had to dig to find it. Only two killings in Chicago is down in the noise level, not worthy of attention to some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2018, 07:12 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,123 posts, read 44,928,596 times
Reputation: 13732
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
I never said it was, you misread what I wrote. I made the assumption the reader could see that I was writing about two different databases, and how they interface.


Sounds like all the liberals (or leftists, or progressive, or whatever they want to call themselves today).

The shooter in Jacksonville had been involuntarily committed, multiple times
By whom? That has to be legally adjudicated. All I've seen is that he had been hospitalized for treatment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 07:33 AM
 
5,472 posts, read 3,231,274 times
Reputation: 3935
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
It is being reported by some that he was quite the opposite.
https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/j...tance-warrior/
If so, I'll accept being wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 09:46 AM
 
Location: MS
4,395 posts, read 4,917,750 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance and Change View Post
Who the heck brings a gun to a "gaming contest".... ....


(bringing a gun to a gaming event, is enough fact, that this was a premeditated act if and when this person did not win.)
I carry a gun almost everywhere I go. I'm working from home right now with a 9mm on my right hip in an In-The-Waistband holster. It's part of my everyday carry items like wallet and car keys.


The guy was obviously troubled. He also lied on his 4473 form but that happens thousands of times a year and less than a dozen are prosecuted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 09:53 AM
 
29,564 posts, read 14,708,717 times
Reputation: 14486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance and Change View Post
If so, I'll accept being wrong.

It's all good, and really who cares what side he leans on.


I'm more curious about his gun purchases. It's been stated they were legal. Legal where ? If he bought them in Baltimore, and brought them to Florida....why ? If he had a CPL, I get it, personal protection. If not....was he going to go target shooting or was this whole thing premeditated ?
I still say he couldn't purchase them legally in Florida being from out of state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 10:01 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,123 posts, read 44,928,596 times
Reputation: 13732
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
It's all good, and really who cares what side he leans on.

I'm more curious about his gun purchases. It's been stated they were legal. Legal where ?
Maryland.
Quote:
If he bought them in Baltimore, and brought them to Florida....why ? If he had a CPL, I get it, personal protection. If not....was he going to go target shooting or was this whole thing premeditated ?
I still say he couldn't purchase them legally in Florida being from out of state.
He was not flagged by NICS as being mentally ill because HIPAA prohibits health care providers, insurers, etc., from sharing diagnoses, case history, incidents of voluntary treatment, etc., with the NICS system. Only the mentally ill who have been legally adjudicated and consequently involuntarily committed can be reported to NICS. Same issue green-lighted Nikolas Cruz.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 10:23 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,741 posts, read 7,632,416 times
Reputation: 15011
The Founding Fathers decided that Americans would be much better off if govt had NO authority to take away or restrict their guns. And they didn't decide that just from a knee-jerk reaction to some people getting shot in a fight in a pub that day someplace. They studied governments for years, how much they gradually turned well-meaning "gun control" (or sword control etc.) laws into laws that would disarm honest citizens and leave them vulnerable to both local thugs and murderers AND oppressive government. How many governments ultimately tried to disarm their populaces, making laws that only the law-abiding would obey, etc.

And after their long and involved study of many disparate issues, they wrote into our founding documents a flat ban on government making ANY laws to take away or restrict the people's guns.

And still nobody in this thread has even tried to refute the conclusions they came to. We've had a few hysterics saying, "Ummm, 1789! Muskets! Flintlocks!" as though that had anything to do with the Framers' studies of governments and human nature.

This one-sided abdication of the anti-gun-rights people's position is so complete as to be remarkable.

The only thing more remarkable (so far), is that after utterly failing to support their arguments for govt control of personal weapons, in the face of huge, documented sagas of criminals seeking out unarmed people far from police aid or presence, and govt after govt oppressing and even massacring its own citizens after disarming them... they still say govt should have the authority to control our personal weapons. And even that people should have no right to own and carry guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 10:25 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,123 posts, read 44,928,596 times
Reputation: 13732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
The Founding Fathers decided that Americans would be much better off if govt had NO authority to take away or restrict their guns. And they didn't decide that just from a knee-jerk reaction to some people getting shot in a fight in a pub that day someplace. They studied governments for years, how much they gradually turned well-meaning "gun control" (or sword control etc.) laws into laws that would disarm honest citizens and leave them vulnerable to both local thugs and murderers AND oppressive government. How many governments ultimately tried to disarm their populaces, making laws that only the law-abiding would obey, etc.

And after their long and involved study of many disparate issues, they wrote into our founding documents a flat ban on government making ANY laws to take away or restrict the people's guns.

And still nobody in this thread has even tried to refute the conclusions they came to. We've had a few hysterics saying, "Ummm, 1789! Muskets! Flintlocks!" as though that had anything to do with the Framers' studies of governments and human nature.

This one-sided abdication of the anti-gun-rights people's position is so complete as to be remarkable.

The only thing more remarkable (so far), is that after utterly failing to support their arguments for govt control of personal weapons, in the face of huge, documented sagas of criminals seeking out unarmed people far from police aid or presence, and govt after govt oppressing and even massacring its own citizens after disarming them... they still say govt should have the authority to control our personal weapons. And even that people should have no right to own and carry guns.
Spot on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 10:28 AM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,505,902 times
Reputation: 2964
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Maryland. He was not flagged by NICS as being mentally ill because HIPAA prohibits health care providers, insurers, etc., from sharing diagnoses, case history, incidents of voluntary treatment, etc., with the NICS system. Only the mentally ill who have been legally adjudicated and consequently involuntarily committed can be reported to NICS. Same issue green-lighted Nikolas Cruz.
And there it is....
The truth of the matter.

Want to revoke rights? Due process and get them adjudicated mentally defective in a court of law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 10:32 AM
 
29,564 posts, read 14,708,717 times
Reputation: 14486
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Maryland. He was not flagged by NICS as being mentally ill because HIPAA prohibits health care providers, insurers, etc., from sharing diagnoses, case history, incidents of voluntary treatment, etc., with the NICS system. Only the mentally ill who have been legally adjudicated and consequently involuntarily committed can be reported to NICS. Same issue green-lighted Nikolas Cruz.

Well aware about the HIPAA laws.
So , he purchased the firearms in Maryland. Next question is , did he have a CPL ? If not , there really was no reason for him to bring along his firearms unless he planned on spending some time at a gun range. This is sounding much more like a premeditated crime than anything. Wonder if he had lost to the targeted people prior to this competition ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top