ADVERTISEMENT

Oh Yagsi, FLorida Shooter Info

i am herdman

i am herdman

Platinum Buffalo
Gold Member
Mar 5, 2006
85,659
32,180
113
- He was twice institutionalized for mental issues and was on anti-psychotic drugs
- His parents worried for a long time about his mental state
- He legally purchased two handguns in his home state MD which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation including: Universal background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, registration, requires Handgun Qualification License to buy a gun, is a may-issue state wherein applicants have to substantiate good reason to conceal carry
- MD and FL do not have reciprocity meaning the murderer illegally brought his gun to Florida with him
- The murderers were carried out in a gun-free zone that gamers say had little to no security

Every gun control law was in place. So why are some blaming law-abiding gun owners and NOT the actual murderer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 19MU88
Raoul Duke MU said:
Point one needs further explaination before I can agree he legally purchased and possessed a weapon.
Click to expand...
Agree whole heartedly. I don’t think many people would complain if you were committed then you need a little more scrutiny during your background check
 
i am herdman said:
Every gun control law was in place. So why are some blaming law-abiding gun owners and NOT the actual murderer?
Click to expand...

Who isn't blaming the murderer? Who is blaming law-abiding gun owners? Hell, I am a law abiding gun owner x 2 and am not blaming myself.

If you're going to make comments, at least make logical ones.


i am herdman said:
- He was twice institutionalized for mental issues and was on anti-psychotic drugs
- His parents worried for a long time about his mental state
Click to expand...

I bet this guy is exactly who the signers of the Constitution had in mind when they created the 2nd.

Changing this is why gun reform is needed.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Who isn't blaming the murderer? Who is blaming law-abiding gun owners? Hell, I am a law abiding gun owner x 2 and am not blaming myself.

If you're going to make comments, at least make logical ones.




I bet this guy is exactly who the signers of the Constitution had in mind when they created the 2nd.

Changing this is why gun reform is needed.
Click to expand...
I see you did not address the other parts of the post. The part where he bought the guns in MD. MD has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sistersville
i am herdman said:
I see you did not address the other parts of the post. The part where he bought the guns in MD. MD has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that gun reform needs to happen at the federal level. All states would have to be under that federal legislation. If each state/county/city wants to make even tighter restrictions, then fine.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that gun reform needs to happen at the federal level. All states would have to be under that federal legislation. If each state/county/city wants to make even tighter restrictions, then fine.
Click to expand...
They already are.
 
i am herdman said:
They already are.
Click to expand...

Pfft. If an early 20s guy can legally posses guns who has been institutionalized twice (assuming involuntarily), takes anti-psychotic drugs, and the people closest to him are extremely concerned about his mental state, then they aren't strict enough.

Tell me, Herdman. Would you be fine with a guy in his early 20s who has been institutionalized twice, takes anti-psychotic drugs, and whose parents are concerned about his mental state babysitting your hypothetical daughter (not the slvtty one who brings home Jamaal for dinner, but your hypothetical younger daughter)?

You wouldn't be fine with that. And you shouldn't be fine with a person like that owning guns.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Pfft. If an early 20s guy can legally posses guns who has been institutionalized twice (assuming involuntarily), takes anti-psychotic drugs, and the people closest to him are extremely concerned about his mental state, then they aren't strict enough.

Tell me, Herdman. Would you be fine with a guy in his early 20s who has been institutionalized twice, takes anti-psychotic drugs, and whose parents are concerned about his mental state babysitting your hypothetical daughter (not the slvtty one who brings home Jamaal for dinner, but your hypothetical younger daughter)?

You wouldn't be fine with that. And you shouldn't be fine with a person like that owning guns.
Click to expand...
I am not ok with drunk drivers killing people either. But, that is a state law not a federal law and certainly not in the constitution. We have a separation of powers and certain things are left to the states.
 
i am herdman said:
I am not ok with drunk drivers killing people either. But, that is a state law not a federal law and certainly not in the constitution. We have a separation of powers and certain things are left to the states.
Click to expand...

It won’t let me edit the post with this name, but my previous post was supposed to be “possess.”

Gun ownership is a federally protected right. States and local governments can restrict, to a certain extent, but your argument about separation of powers related to it is bogus.

It’s a federal issue, not a state issue. As a result, gun reform needs to be done at the federal level.
 
C.K. Ocsevol-Evad said:
It won’t let me edit the post with this name, but my previous post was supposed to be “possess.”

Gun ownership is a federally protected right. States and local governments can restrict, to a certain extent, but your argument about separation of powers related to it is bogus.

It’s a federal issue, not a state issue. As a result, gun reform needs to be done at the federal level.
Click to expand...
so how do you feel about state reciprocity for conceal carry?
 
i am herdman said:
the Constitution also says "shall not be infringed"
Click to expand...

Then, you should be fine with Charles Manson, the retarded kid down the street, and anyone else having bombs. After all, "shall not be infringed," right?

We both know the "shall not be infringed" has been pissed upon for many, many years.

But since you're a strict Constitutionalist (at least on this issue), lets talk about this Constitution: about a third of the approximately 39 people who signed it weren't even old enough to be the president.

Do you really think these guys all thought this thing shouldn't change hundreds of years later as technology advanced? You think they all thought it would stand for hundreds of years for no reason other than that they said those rights are granted upon us, regardless of limits?

Let me repeat that - about a third of the people signing the Constitution agreed that they weren't old enough/wise enough/experienced in life enough to be the president, but they supposedly thought that they were wise enough and experienced in life enough to form an iron-clad rule book telling presidents (and everyone else in the country) what they can and can't do? Yeah, that makes sense!

We were one vote away from simply having Congress pick the president and having it be a lifetime appointment (an elective monarchy). One vote away from that. They eventually agreed to no term limits. We clearly pissed on that, too . . . yet "shall not infringe" should not be modified at all, right?

The south lost. You're an example of why.
 
i am herdman said:
I can't control how they report it.
Click to expand...

You can control the link you give me lol. Seriously, I understand the law concerning mental health, if he was truly committed to a mental institution by a court he cannot purchase a firearm under federal law. Under Maryland law if he was even voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility for 30 consecutive days he cannot purchase or possess a firearm.

So yeah, it's pretty important what you mean by "institutionalized". In my profession, that word means in there a hell of a lot longer than 30 days, and generally in there as the result of a court process.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Then, you should be fine with Charles Manson, the retarded kid down the street, and anyone else having bombs. After all, "shall not be infringed," right?

We both know the "shall not be infringed" has been pissed upon for many, many years.

But since you're a strict Constitutionalist (at least on this issue), lets talk about this Constitution: about a third of the approximately 39 people who signed it weren't even old enough to be the president.

Do you really think these guys all thought this thing shouldn't change hundreds of years later as technology advanced? You think they all thought it would stand for hundreds of years for no reason other than that they said those rights are granted upon us, regardless of limits?

Let me repeat that - about a third of the people signing the Constitution agreed that they weren't old enough/wise enough/experienced in life enough to be the president, but they supposedly thought that they were wise enough and experienced in life enough to form an iron-clad rule book telling presidents (and everyone else in the country) what they can and can't do? Yeah, that makes sense!

We were one vote away from simply having Congress pick the president and having it be a lifetime appointment (an elective monarchy). One vote away from that. They eventually agreed to no term limits. We clearly pissed on that, too . . . yet "shall not infringe" should not be modified at all, right?

The south lost. You're an example of why.
Click to expand...
No, I am not fine with that. You are playing the red herring argument. There are laws in place for that. There are already federal gun laws and local and state gun laws.

Do you want to talk about why NC has county issued pistol/handgun permits? DO you want to know the history of that one? "Tough" laws in place and you know why? I am against those laws because for one they are archaic and two they were put in place as discriminatory acts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerdFan76
Raoul Duke MU said:
You can control the link you give me lol. Seriously, I understand the law concerning mental health, if he was truly committed to a mental institution by a court he cannot purchase a firearm under federal law. Under Maryland law if he was even voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility for 30 consecutive days he cannot purchase or possess a firearm.

So yeah, it's pretty important what you mean by "institutionalized". In my profession, that word means in there a hell of a lot longer than 30 days, and generally in there as the result of a court process.
Click to expand...
In NC if you are under mind altering drugs or even institutionalized at all you can't legally purchase.
 
Raoul Duke MU said:
You can control the link you give me lol. Seriously, I understand the law concerning mental health, if he was truly committed to a mental institution by a court he cannot purchase a firearm under federal law. Under Maryland law if he was even voluntarily admitted to a mental health facility for 30 consecutive days he cannot purchase or possess a firearm.

So yeah, it's pretty important what you mean by "institutionalized". In my profession, that word means in there a hell of a lot longer than 30 days, and generally in there as the result of a court process.
Click to expand...
I saw where it was in his youth. Could it have been erased from his record? I don’t know how that works as opposed to legal issues being expunged when they turn 18 in some cases
 
herdfan429 said:
I saw where it was in his youth. Could it have been erased from his record? I don’t know how that works as opposed to legal issues being expunged when they turn 18 in some cases
Click to expand...

Perhaps that record is not visible for the check. But if an involuntary commitment still he needs to check the "batshit crazy" box.

And yes, it is totally insane we rely on people to tell us they are totally insane when buying a gun. Those records need overhauled in a big way. And I don't care if they were a juvenile, nope you go on the list too.
 
Raoul Duke MU said:
Perhaps that record is not visible for the check. But if an involuntary commitment still he needs to check the "batshit crazy" box.

And yes, it is totally insane we rely on people to tell us they are totally insane when buying a gun. Those records need overhauled in a big way. And I don't care if they were a juvenile, nope you go on the list too.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly mental issues need to go into the background check no matter what. I’m fine if it’s just a flag that would require more in-depth analysis vs outright denial but it has to be looked at
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
i am herdman said:
So you guys want the govt diving into our medical records?
Click to expand...
You want psychopaths like this guy able to get a gun? This is the problem. I’m pretty sure even you can agree that people with certain mental issues shouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm. The ONLY way for that to happen is that info being shared with the govt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raoul Duke MU
i am herdman said:
So you guys want the govt diving into our medical records?
Click to expand...

If we want the freedom to have guns, yes. I do not want people so fvcked up they have been involuntarily committed to have a gun. I'd throw in voluntarily committed for 30 or more days as well.

Do you know how fvcking hard it is to get someone involuntarily committed for more than a 72 hour psych evaluation? In all honesty, even a 72 hour check should be a GIANT RED FLAG someone cannot handle owning a gun. This isn't the usual depression or mild anxiety stuff we are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herdfan429
herdfan429 said:
You want psychopaths like this guy able to get a gun? This is the problem. I’m pretty sure even you can agree that people with certain mental issues shouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm. The ONLY way for that to happen is that info being shared with the govt.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I did. I asked a question about the govt diving into our medical records.
 
Raoul Duke MU said:
If we want the freedom to have guns, yes. I do not want people so fvcked up they have been involuntarily committed to have a gun. I'd throw in voluntarily committed for 30 or more days as well.

Do you know how fvcking hard it is to get someone involuntarily committed for more than a 72 hour psych evaluation? In all honesty, even a 72 hour check should be a GIANT RED FLAG someone cannot handle owning a gun. This isn't the usual depression or mild anxiety stuff we are talking about.
Click to expand...
So let's say someone has a fear of flying. their doctor prescribed them 5 to 10 xanax pills.

They get flagged and can't get a conceal carry permit. That ok?
 
i am herdman said:
So let's say someone has a fear of flying. their doctor prescribed them 5 to 10 xanax pills.

They get flagged and can't get a conceal carry permit. That ok?
Click to expand...
My god learn to read. We are both specifically talking about being committed to a mental
Health facility
 
herdfan429 said:
My god learn to read. We are both specifically talking about being committed to a mental
Health facility
Click to expand...
I get that. But, where does it stop?????? THat was one of the problems with some legislation that tried to pass. That is what had the veterans groups up in arms(no pun intended). Joe comes back from the war. Seeks some help and then gets flagged and can't buy a gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerdFan73
i am herdman said:
Do you want to talk about why NC has county issued pistol/handgun permits? DO you want to know the history of that one? "Tough" laws in place and you know why? I am against those laws because for one they are archaic and two they were put in place as discriminatory acts.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on admitting that you want gun reform.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
You just admitted it, deplorable. You listed numerous gun laws in North Carolina, and you said you were against those laws. That means you want gun reform. Congratulations.
Click to expand...
Sure, the pistol permit by the county sheriffs needs to go.
 
Y.A.G Si Ye Nots said:
Then, you should be fine with Charles Manson, the retarded kid down the street, and anyone else having bombs. After all, "shall not be infringed," right?

We both know the "shall not be infringed" has been pissed upon for many, many years.

But since you're a strict Constitutionalist (at least on this issue), lets talk about this Constitution: about a third of the approximately 39 people who signed it weren't even old enough to be the president.

Do you really think these guys all thought this thing shouldn't change hundreds of years later as technology advanced? You think they all thought it would stand for hundreds of years for no reason other than that they said those rights are granted upon us, regardless of limits?

Let me repeat that - about a third of the people signing the Constitution agreed that they weren't old enough/wise enough/experienced in life enough to be the president, but they supposedly thought that they were wise enough and experienced in life enough to form an iron-clad rule book telling presidents (and everyone else in the country) what they can and can't do? Yeah, that makes sense!

We were one vote away from simply having Congress pick the president and having it be a lifetime appointment (an elective monarchy). One vote away from that. They eventually agreed to no term limits. We clearly pissed on that, too . . . yet "shall not infringe" should not be modified at all, right?

The south lost. You're an example of why.
Click to expand...
Lol what rubbish rifle. Talk talk talk and maybe run into something truthful
 
i am herdman said:
I get that. But, where does it stop?????? THat was one of the problems with some legislation that tried to pass. That is what had the veterans groups up in arms(no pun intended). Joe comes back from the war. Seeks some help and then gets flagged and can't buy a gun.
Click to expand...
could have saved chris kyle's life . . .
 
i am herdman said:
I get that. But, where does it stop?????? THat was one of the problems with some legislation that tried to pass. That is what had the veterans groups up in arms(no pun intended). Joe comes back from the war. Seeks some help and then gets flagged and can't buy a gun.
Click to expand...
It stops right where we said it does. If you have been committed over the usually 24-72 hold then that triggers not an outright denial but further evaluation to see if you are mentally capable/stable enough to have a firearm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back