DaveTN

If it’s true (who knows with all this internet hype right now), she makes very valid points. As a Police Officer I saw firsthand where mental patients committed crimes to get treatment.   But what do we do? The only places that we have that will handle these people with mental problems are jails and prisons, and they only hold them for short periods unless they kill someone. Hospitals or private facilities are only for those that can afford them. I would guess that is a small percentage of the people that need them.   Then you have the privacy issues. Mental patients are protected. If there was someone where to put them, who is going to expose them, who is going to get them on a list that will help keep them from being able to buy a weapon?   As this mother says….   We here are sure that the weapons bans will have no impact. Short of building facilities that will house mentally ill people I don’t that we have any answers. We are having trouble building prisons to house those that have committed crimes, let alone those that might, or are a danger.

It’s a freedom Americans enjoy; one I served in the military to protect. No one is twisting anyone’s arm and making them join a union. If the majority of workers in a company don’t want a union; it’s gone…. that simple.   Many companies don’t have unions because they don’t need them; the owners are concerned with the safety and health of their employees, and pay a fair wage. But some don’t. Some right here in Tennessee is the reason unions are still around.   In the spirit of full discloser, I am not in a union, haven’t been for many years, and have no desire to work in one. But working in manufacturing I have travelled all over the country and have seen many examples of why we still have unions. I can take you to places right here in Tennessee where the owners are killing their employees. They get by with it because their employees fear them, need the work, and many are illegals.

Common sense people aren’t going to vilify us. Common sense people know that outlawing guns won’t keep them out of the hands of criminals. If it did they wouldn’t have crack and meth and we would have a lot less crime.   People like Feinstein have it in their heads that they know what’s best to get them reelected and they aren’t going to listen to anyone else or entertain any discussion about the facts. This will get voted down; if it even makes it to a vote.   But we do need to have a letter writing campaign to our legislators. No emails, no silly azz petitions; letters in their “In” basket.

I did watch the video. He said the shooter was pulling on the charging handle and that he saw movement behind him and so he didn’t take the shot. The reporter said he ducked back inside the store. The reporter also made it sound like the shooter killed two people after the guy decided not to take the shot?? I didn’t hear the guy say he made eye contact or that he thought his presence caused the shooter to shoot himself.

The threat wasn’t stopped when the guy was pulling on the charging handle trying to get the weapon to fire. The threat was over when the shooter couldn't get his rifle to work and shot himself in the head. At least that’s the way I’m reading the story.

What am I missing? He didn’t act, and that’s fine there were people in the way. He took cover in a store. I see no indication that he confronted or engaged the shooter. Are we assuming the shooter saw him and it made him kill himself?

You will get all kinds of guesses/speculation/interpretations when you ask about the use or threating the use of deadly force.   My opinion (which means nothing) is that the threat of force has a much lower level of justification than the use of force. If someone approaches me in a threatening manner I will draw my weapon. However, that doesn’t mean a scary looking guy asking for money or a cigarette. It would be more along the lines of me walking away from someone and them running at me or grabbing me.   However, if you ever pull your weapon you better be on the phone with the cops right then, right that minute, not after you drive home and think about it. The first caller is the complainant the second caller is the suspect.   Whether or not you were justified in what you did will first be determined by the responding Officers. If they agree you were in danger they will let you go. (Talking about you pulling your gun, not killing someone) If they don’t agree it then goes to the DA and then a Judge or Jury.   If you make the decision to pull the trigger it’s all on you. There are no hard and fast rules, short of someone threatening you with a deadly weapon or shooting at you. Everything comes into play then. No one cares what you were thinking or whether or not you were scared; they only care what a reasonable person would think or do. My own personal test is “Would a reasonable person believe I am in fear of death or great bodily harm?”   So many things come into play in deciding if you were justified. You will be judged by people that have weeks if not months to think about and decide if what you did was right.   As a Police Officer we had access to the States Attorney for our County. We had a pretty good idea of what he would do, without having a specific case to look at. In a perfect world citizens would have that same kind of access in their counties so they would know the feelings of the DA.   One of the Attorneys here is going to have a class on this. (Need a link) That would be a great source of information. Unfortunately when it comes to the use of deadly force or what you should do after shooting, Defense Attorneys and District Attorneys are going to have differing opinions. You need to hear both sides and make informed decisions as you are the only one that is going to be held reasonable for your actions. I’m not aware if County DA’s make themselves or someone from their office available for this kind of information.            

Ted makes it too easy for people to disregard him. As public as he is, I think he could serve his purpose better if he didn’t act like such a nut case.   I always make the argument that my right to protect myself does not come from the 2nd amendment.   It comes from my inalienable right to live and protect myself and my family…. Period. I should not need to make an argument about whether or not that is what our founding Fathers were talking about in a Constitutional amendment.   One has nothing to do with the other.   Unfortunately, neither the State of Tennessee nor the Federal government agrees.

Nope.

That isn’t true. You can own a handgun in this state at 18 and buy them in a private sale. You just can’t buy one from an FFL until you are 21. Shooters age would not have been an issue in this state.

My point exactly. They may have less crime because of their social activity and interaction. But that doesn’t mean that a kid that is home schooled and lacks social skills won’t be impacted by what they see and do in a video game.   What we take in and the things we do is who we are. You can’t say that violence in any form has ZERO impact on a kid.   I’m not making an argument to blame video games. But common sense tells me everything a kid does in their formative years has impact on who they are and who they become.

If people get rid of their baseless assumptions about cops and quit listening to the haters on the internet that don’t know any cops other than the ones that arrested them; you will be hard pressed to find many street cops that support gun bans. Police Chiefs and Sherriff’s aren’t cops; they are Administrators and Politicians with agendas and alliances. The “International Association of Chiefs of Police” is a political organization, what they support has nothing to do with rank and file cops. What Police Officers believe is as diverse as the public at large. I have been a Police Officer, know a lot of Police Officers both personally and professionally and most do not support gun control. I consider cops to be on our side in this battle and if a gun grab is ever tried in this country it won’t be a Police Officer standing in front of you telling you to give up your weapon. And finally….. Police Officers don’t make laws. They are just the ones charged with enforcing the laws your legislators pass. If you don’t like the law; hate on legislators, not the cops.

What a child sees, does, or spends a lot of time doing has ZERO effect on them? I’m, not a psychiatrist, psychologist, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night; but common sense tells me that isn’t true.   What fraction do they have? And if that’s true could the reasons be something that has nothing to do with video games?

Amen.

You can’t prevent people from attacking each other. But are you suggesting that when we have criminals or the mentally ill killing everyone present because they don’t have the ability to fight a wall of lead, we throw up or hands, give up and say “Life’s tough, and only the strong survive”?   They might be able to come in my house and kill us, but probably not without a gun.   I’m thinking that removing some of the confidentiality protection of the mentally ill that have been diagnosed as being potentially violent might work better than gun control. Am I all messed up in that line of thinking?   Gun control messes up my basic belief that the only way to stop an active shooter is with an active shooter.

Because 1st and 2nd amendment cases make their way through the courts systems, where they are settled, or they ultimately end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution. That is the way our founding Fathers wanted it and documented it. Any change from that and you throw the Constitution out and start over. That’s not happening and isn’t what most of us want.

If you take guns out of the equation and say they have no bearing on the real issue; what’s next?   I am absolutely sure something is going to happen here. Gun control wouldn’t work even if any of us believed in it. Drugs are illegal and they are plentiful to those that want them.   How do you suggest we get to the point of where when a person with mental problems that has not committed a crime tries to buy a gun; they are denied, or that they are not allowed access to guns in their homes?   However, keep in mind that is not what happened here. It appears (and we do not know for sure yet) either the mother legally bought these guns for herself, or she bought them for her family.

The only way to stop an active shooter is with an active shooter.   What a monster this person had to be to kill children in a kindergarten class.   The issue here is not necessarily guns, but the people with mental problems that get their hands on them. This guy committed no crimes that day prior to going to the school, the only way he stole his mother’s guns would be if she reported them stolen and pressed charges. Unlikely that would have happened. And even if it did, who cares, it pales in comparison to the murders he committed. This is early on in the investigation and we don’t know what happened. The mother was murdered by this animal and we can’t get any info from her.   The mentally ill are protected. They are one of the groups that need to not have access to firearms. However, unless a mentally ill person was involved in some kind of court action or commitment; there would be nothing there to flag a firearm sale.   Obama keeps talking about “Background Checks”. Background checks for criminals is already done, I think he is talking about a way of getting the mentally ill (and criminals without convictions) into the system.  I don’t see how that can be done without violating medical confidentiality and the Constitution.   Sorry, but if someone has a mental condition that would make violence likely, or would cause them to commit mass murder on children; they need to be on a list somewhere and under observation. This is more than a child acting out because they weren’t brought up right. This is an adult with an obviously serious mental disorder. Was this unnoticed all his life?  

If the Police, ATF, or attorneys are involved; everything has legal bearing.   Age and proof of state of residence is a given. Get that wrong and you have legal problems. Whether or not they are a criminal is not so clear cut. We have no way to do a background check, so a BOS shows you did all you could (as long as the BOS addresses that). They would need to prove you knew someone was a criminal, selling to a family member that you know is a convicted felon for example.

Well that's all fine and dandy, you can feel however you want about unions. But my point is that any time the majority of the workers want a union gone; its gone. Just because some people don't want to pay union dues doesn't make the union bad. You will always have some that feel they entitled to a free ride; we see it all the time anymore.   I didn't vote for Obama and its a sad state of affairs that he got elected. But the majority of the American people wanted him and now I have to deal with it. I could whine and cry and stomp my feet; but it wouldn't do any good.   If you don't want a union; vote them out. If you don't have the support to do that; either STFU and pay your union dues or go find a job somewhere else.... its really that simple.

Its Canadian. I didn't think they let them play with guns in Canada. http://www.m14.ca/

It’s really very simple. If the majority of a business has voted the union it; you pay union dues. If the government wants to step in and say you can’t make workers’ pay union dues, that’s fine also, but they don’t get union benefits.   If Hoffa threatens violence; the Feds will destroy him.    

I’ve expected this. Obama has made most of his noise about background checks. How many of these websites can afford the legal battle the Brandy Bunch, or a wrongful death suit bring? Can TGO, or GOC? I doubt it. Even GT, S&W or Arfcom would struggle with that. I wouldn’t have a problem with requiring a background check if they were free. But it’s not right to mandate a BC and then let a dealer charge whatever he likes, or even make them responsible for doing it. I’d be curious to know if Haughton’s restraining order would have even showed up in a background check. Unless it’s part of a criminal case; it’s unlikely. Demetry Smirnov didn’t have a criminal record; his crime was being from Canada.

How would anyone know? I’ve taken a bunch of drunk drivers off the street, I’ve handled a lot of domestic violence calls, and I’ve kept a lot of people alive at an accident scene until the paramedics arrived. How many crimes have I prevented or how many lives have I saved?

He killed his kid. What do you want to do to him now, send him to trial for involuntary manslaughter? A jury would never convict him. I know someone that committed a gross act of negligence that led to the death of a kid and many here don’t want to even see him go to trial.