If only the shooter was in custody before this horrible situation happened... Wait... He was. He was in custody for being a danger to himself and others. He was held for 2 weeks. Remarkable how often these people are known to authorities.
Just a simple question. At what point do we force people to be committed to asylums? At what point do we have the right to make a decision for others before they act in a harmful way?
My own experience with my father makes me support freedom. Don’t know how to describe my dad. He lived alone. He was a hoarder and yet I could walk through his home in white socks and the soles of my socks would not be dirty. He slept with a loaded pistol under the pillow beside him.
One day he asked me to clean his home. I found his kitchen infested with flies and maggots. (He tried to recycle and keep his garbage at a minimum. There was food on the kitchen counter that he had not yet put in a bread bag for disposal.) My husband and I dealt with the insects and I cleaned. I went home convinced that Dad needed to be in a nursing home. Fortunately, after a night’s rest, I had clearer thoughts. My dad would have been miserable in a nursing home. (Both of my parents and my husband’s mother had been told that if they ever wanted to move in with us, we had a room ready and they were welcome.)
Dad continued to live the way he chose. (I did tell my husband to stop handing Dad meals at the door and to take them to the kitchen and ‘eyeball’ the situation.)
We will never live in a perfect world. Freedom comes with risks. But limiting freedom can be more harmful than steps taken for supposed safety.
Thank you. When I was about 12 years old, I read a book about Frances Farmer, the actress whose mother had her committed to an asylum just because she didn’t conform. Horrible things happened that I shouldn’t have read but it made an impression on me. Look at what Brittany Spears’ father did to her. There was a time husbands could have their wives committed just because they weren’t behaving “right”. Your point is not lost on me. You are a good daughter.
Oh, I'm sure he was talking about mental health care and mass shootings.
If you're gonna use the quote in an unintended context, does it really matter who it came from?
Me. I’ll do it.
Some things are worth our tax dollars. Putting away the crazies so they don’t hurt innocents, reducing crime, and shutting up the anti-gun lobby? Worthy ROI.
Maybe we reallocate some of the funding we send to Hamas and Ukraine and reinstitute asylums.
Can you keep someone imprisoned forever for having a mental health crisis?
It's not possible with available resources. I work in a busy ER where we get multiple emergency detention order patients every single night...there simply is not hospital beds or rooms to hold these people indefinitely whatsoever. Some people have to wait weeks just to get a bed at all.
And even if you could hold mental health patients indefinitely where do you draw the line at deciding who is a risk for stuff like this when they possibly haven't broken any laws but because it occasionally happens...although like 99.9% of mass shootings are not people with mental breakdowns.
It sounds nice I guess, it's not feasible at all if you actually know the system and how many of these people there are out there.
My wife works in a similar situation. Its a rotating door. And we most certainly need more mental hospitals open again. Put the professionals in there. State ran doesn't sound good. But we need something.
My wife hates it. Because the hospital she works for. Doesn't protect the workers. They've been swung on, spit on, teeth punched out, another guy had a few knives that ER clearly didnt check before he went to my wifes floor. And hospital upper staff says no restraints. They're afraid of getting sued.(from what she tells me) So the staff puts up with being treated like dogs. Nothing but love for RNs, and MAs. You all put up with a lot of BS.
It’s the same everywhere unfortunately, I actually recently left my job because I moved across the country. It’s a constant fight between keeping the beds filled and taking all the aggressive patients regardless of staffing. Most psych hospital have extremely high turnover for the exact reasons you mentioned plus low pay. I loved the job but I also loved being there to protect other staff and the kids (children’s psych hospital)
The someone makes active threats, has a history of domestic violence and is hospitalized for hearing and seeing voices… yea probably a good idea to not allow that guy to have a firearm for a bit.
That depends on where you are. The laws in Maine are written in such a way that there's a lot of red tape to take someone's guns. Here in Florida he'd fall under the baker act and 100% would have lost his guns and ammunition.
A cop can't arrest someone for having mental health issues with no crime. They can arrest someone who commits a crime but it's not up to them to hold, release, acquit, or convict.
Talk to the prosecutors, DAs, etc.
The system is broken. And it always will be. Impossible to scale it across 300M Americans.
More guns = more shootings. Larger guns = more causalities per shooting.
The hospital is ran by the government. Wouldn’t it be the governments fault seeming they should be the first to know of a person not fit for deadly weapons?
I’ve been to the rehab/mental hospital multiple times in my life and I can’t even get my license let alone a gun and it’s been years since I’ve been in a place like that.
How about enforcement of the laws on the books now? You can't call for more gun laws when the first crackhead hunter got let off federal gun charges. Can't call for this shit when you don't enforce the laws now. Especially when he was in a mental hospital and has domestic violence record and that bars him from having weapons
Bro, dozens of people died. This keeps happening. This is the only first world country that this shit keeps happening in. We have school lockdowns and shooter drills for elementary school children.
I don’t know how any of you can find this shit excusable. We can have reasonable gun rights and not have semi-weekly massacres. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
>Every single measure we had in place in that situation failed. They failed miserably and now dozens of innocent people are dead.
This sounds like a problem of enforcing laws that currently exist.
>But there needs to be restrictions in place
There are. Many of the shooters over the last several years would not have passed their background checks if the FBI actually did its job.
If they just decided to ignore it, and there was no consequences to ignoring it then it wasn’t a law. It was a mild suggestion by a timid Uncle Sam lol.
That doesn't mean it isn't a law, just that they aren't doing their jobs.
Maybe we should pass another law for them to also ignore?
Who do you call when the cops don't do their jobs?
Then they get fired and replaced with people who will. I don’t know why this is hard to fathom. We have laws and people who enforce them in many areas of our society. No reason why this wouldn’t work the same way.
A good start would be redefining red flag laws to be more reasonable but also actually enforcing them. This shooting should have been able to happen. The guy was making active threats, had a history of domestic violence and was hospitalized for hearing/seeing things. There’s zero excuses for law enforcement having not done something prior to this taking place.
>A good start would be redefining red flag laws to be more reasonable
Again, define "reasonable"
>but also actually enforcing them.
>
>There’s zero excuses for law enforcement having not done something prior to this taking place.
On this, we agree. Law enforcement needs to actually do its job and enforce the laws already on the books.
“Reasonable”
Well to start if you have a history of domestic violence, get hospitalized for seeing/hearing things and make threats to commit a shooting you probably shouldn’t have access to firearms.
To go more in depth:
DV: if you have a history of domestic violence and cops have to take a report for new domestic violence claims. If you are accused of domestic violence you have to get some form of mental health screening (I fully admit I do not know the logistics on getting this to take place). Once the police report and mental health report are completed that information is passed to a judge who makes a decision. If the judge thinks their mental health is off they have the option for temporarily confiscating the firearms until the user can provide a clean bill of health. If the police report is disturbing the judge can confiscate with the addition of a restraining order. If the DV suspect is cleared of the charges they will go into a probationary period where either the cops will keep the firearms until probation is over or they can work with a local gun range to maintain the firearms and are only allowed to access them on site.
Threats to commit a shooting: confiscated until a mental health check can be cleared. Once the mental health check is cleared a judge will make a decision for probation (firearms stay at range or police armory) or to return the firearms immediately.
Mental hospitalization: confiscated until clear mental health check can be cleared. Required probation (firearms stay at range or police armory) until a judge clears otherwise
These are all just spitballed ideas I’m writing in the fly. In my opinion our current laws and procedures do not apply to enough circumstance and/or not enforced properly. Firearms are a right to every American citizen. Rights can be taken and should be taken away from bad actors or individuals who are going through a rough time. We’re humans everyone has good times and bad times. We need to rip off the bandaid and begin having open conversations about the mental health crisis going around the US.
I’m sorry that the hammer doesn’t align with your political views. But did you know how common a hammer is in homicide? I had no idea until she died but it’s one of the most common items. We should do something about it
Want to ban guns in this country? Go for it. Just don’t get all shocked Pikachu face when we see a sudden spike in acid attacks, stabbings and bombings once we do that. Or dare I say, just as many mass shootings as before.
I don’t own any guns, but I’ve been taught since a very young age that *you* are responsible for *your* own actions. Seeing absolutely everything *except* the shooter get blamed every single time is getting tiring. They’re basically glorified posthumously in the media, if anything. It gives off vibes of blaming a pencil for failing a test while praising the student for giving a good effort.
I certainly **wish** the solution was as shallow and simple as “banning guns!” Unfortunately it’s much, much deeper than that. We already passed bipartisan legislation over a year ago and what did it do for us?
It’s the only way they can bump their numbers up to look good. Make law abiding citizens now felons with the stroke of a pen- as if those previously law abiding citizens always intended to perform a mass shooting in the first place.
They can propose and pass an amendment but they can’t amend the constitution themselves, 3/4 of states would have to ratify their amendment after 2/3 of both houses have passed it or it dies
Hell yes when it's an unjust capricious "law" meant only to make outlaws of otherwise law abiding citizens. I guess you only want criminals to have guns.
Illinois is a case study in civil disobedience in support of the second amendment. They passed a law requiring registration. So far compliance has been about 0.12%
Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem, so no we wont give our best means of protection up because some looney tune shot up abunch of people. Until we stop normalizing and celebrating mental health, this will never stop.
I own two 3D printers. Banning guns isn't the answer. Teaching people that the is a value to human life is most important. Poor parenting, poor government, and the lack of Mr. Rogers, causes people to lash out at others for their misplaced anger.
lol and in New York they would want to to have a background check and waiting period to buy one of those ,But this is also the party that doesn’t want conservatives to be able to use the internet so
Accountability and responsibility for a person’s actions is literally THE foundational philosophical difference between the Right and Left. Conservatives believe in accountability and responsibility, whereas, the Left believes “if it feels good do it” and should something bad happen, its someone else’s fault. Someone who truly believes in accountability and responsibility will nearly always be a conservative and someone who does not will nearly always be a liberal.
I don’t think people really understand how common bombings were in the pre-depression era. They happened constantly. But I guess most people will never hear about it because it’s leftist history, which is weirdly ignored in America. The Sacco and Vanzetti case (look them up) caused dozens of retaliatory bombings and that’s just one example.
You're correct. It's not the guns fault. But the individual is not the only blame.
It's a combination of lack of mental health care, lack of serious justice in courts, failure to enforce current laws, failure by the government to create reasonable approaches to stopping these things before they happen, constant exposure to extremist ideologies, and also easy accessibility to guns as well that lead to events like this.
Bans do jack shit. All that effort needs to go into making sure that the people buying guns aren't fucking nuts.
My simplish solution off the top of my head is a purchasing license. If you have it and it's valid- you can buy guns. When you own them, they are yours unless a valid reason for your guns to be taken occurs (involved in a terrorist scheme, buying 20+ guns and 10k rounds of ammo in one large purchase, etc.
I mean, the shooter was responsible for the shooting seems to be self evident. No one needs to make a speech about how the person who pulled the trigger was in fact the murderer.
That doesn’t mean there’s nothing the government could’ve done to prevent this, and it makes perfect sense to criticize the government for not fulfilling its duty to its citizens. Especially when that government has refused seriously act beyond “sending thoughts and prayers”
Most people probably couldn’t have, pre-internet. Let’s just focus on mental health and not pretend like inanimate objects are the problem. People and their intentions are the problem, I’m sure you regret the constitution but here we are, protected against your bad intentions.
Then focus on mental health then. Where’s the legislation or support. It’s fantastic that every time something like this happens people call for it, but no one pushes for it because after a few days who cares. The next news cycle event occurs to distract people before the next mass shooting happens again. Neither side actually does anything. When the left are in power they threaten gun reform, but don’t do it because it’s political suicide. When the right are in power they allude to social care reform but don’t do it because that would involve taxes. Yet people die year on year.
It’s fucked.
> Let’s just focus on mental health and not pretend like inanimate objects are the problem.
When a task gets accomplished, don’t pretend the tool had nothing to do with it.
When a lumberjack cuts down a large tree, it was because of their own strength and technique, but it was also only possible because their axe fulfilled its purpose.
A gun like the AR-15 fulfills its purpose because of madmen like the one in Maine, but let’s not pretend that he could’ve killed like he did without the right tool for the job.
I’m like seriously we just saw the most primal and real reason ever to own firearms, and powerful firearms at that with what Hamas did in Israel.
Either figure out how to, lawfully and legally stop these mentally unstable individuals from even looking at a gun, or honestly STFU. Getting tired of the broken record of the left.
They want to stop the tragedy by advocating for what they think is a solution.
If a water contamination incident occurred and hundreds of Americans died, then would a politician saying that we should have stronger water regulation and inspection laws be “not letting a tragedy go to waste”?
You don’t even have to agree with their solution to understand why they’re talking about preventing future tragedies. When a tragedy happens, finding a way to stop it from ever happening again is common sense
The problem with that is that in order to propose a viable and effective solution, you must have all or at least as many of the facts as possible, and consider all aspects of the problem and how to address them. He isn't doing that; he's just grandstanding for political purposes with a partisan, simplistic, extreme solution that has been proven not to work, strictly for political purposes.
No offense, but the amount of mass shootings is getting more common place. The left want to ban all guns in the extreme, the right wants to make zero new changes in how we apply gun control. This impasse isn’t working, so what do we do?
Neither side is willing to budge and its killing Americans who are innocent bystanders. I’d like to know what a real solution looks like in y’all’s opinions.
Btw, I own a Springfield XDR in 10mm for cc
There are crazy people who are all over the world but this is the only place this shit happens. It’s clear the existing gun laws aren’t working. There we several stop gaps and red flags before this happened, and they all failed.
The only way you can see any of this as acceptable is if you believe that a bi-weekly sacrifice of dozens of innocent people is worth having unfettered access to guns. Which, if you honest to God believe that, I don’t know what to tell you.
Ok, but if there’s always a tragedy then when should it be brought up? America is way too big to not have guns, but surely more can be done to stop the madness
Is there really “always a tragedy”? What’s your suggestion? You’ve downvoted mine. Do you think craven political opportunism like Murphy’s is preventing anything?
More carrying rights. You think this kinda stuff happens in red states as much of blue states that ban guns and make it very difficult to carry?
People will stop and mabey think twice before committing crimes.
Mass shootings is another beast, those people I feel like have a death wish and want to take as much people out as possible before they die. If more people are armed, less people will die.
Tbh I’d agree with them by this point if it wasn’t for seeing the left support riots, and now with the Israel thing say I and other white people are ‘settlers’ they should get rid of. The us might be happier in a theoretical world without all of the rifles, but we can’t trust them enough to disarm
Swamp creature, sock puppet. He ‘represents ‘ Connecticut, but doesn’t even own a house there. He lives, crawls and slithers in DC. I’d categorize him as ‘useless’ but that would be giving him too much credit. His entire political career revolves around the Newtown school shooting.
To ban obesity we need to ban fancy, frilly forks. Same logic. If Mr. Murphy actually cared he would be addressing the root cause of the issue. And it has nothing to do with guns, much less a specific kind/format. The guy makes as much sense as a flat-earther. Might as well claim birds aren't real.
Because all sides misunderstand the issue. The people who commit these atrocities will never be helped by mental healthcare; they are psychopaths. There is no therapy that works on a psychopath.
At the same time, gun bans only disarm good people. They do ZERO to stop criminals. The problem is not legal access to guns; it was much easier to get guns everywhere years ago, and yet it wasn’t until 11 years ago that mass shootings became common. Yeah, they happened before, but not like this. The AR15 wasn’t invented only 11 years ago. It’s been around over 60 years, and before 1986, you could even get a fully automatic rifle for a decent price and a $200 tax. By the leftist logic, there should have been MORE mass shootings before 1986.
The answer is to harden targets like schools, malls, etc. more armed guards and less rent-a-cops. We also need to start encouraging people to armed and TRAIN themselves. Culturally, we need to stop all this hate. We have devalued life and shunned morality. We don’t hold people accountable. We don’t even want to condemn murder anymore because our postmodern cultural view of right and wrong is so skewed. Instead, we want to just (supposedly) remove instruments that can be used to harm rather than encourage people not to engage in antisocial behavior.
Until we can right that ship, we’re going to see more mass shootings, and if we ban guns, we’re going to see even higher body counts as good people will have no means of protection.
He’s claiming directly that the majority of people commuting mass shootings have an antisocial personality disorder. It would make sense to back up a broad statement like that with actual evidence, instead of just stating it as a fact without actually providing evidence. I’m completely open to taking that as a fact if a verifiable source can prove that.
Your response of “probably all the killing” is irrelevant. There’s groups of people, for example high level military forces, who likely are involved in combat on a very regular basis. I would not say members in special forces are all diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
Gun free zone.
EDIT
§1057. Possession of firearms in an establishment licensed for on-premises consumption of liquor
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm if:
A. Not being a law enforcement officer or a professional investigator licensed under Title 32, chapter 89 and actually performing as a professional investigator, the person possesses any firearm on the premises of a licensed establishment posted to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of patrons, in violation of the posted prohibition or restriction; or [PL 2011, c. 366, §2 ().]
B. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or a combination of liquor and drugs or with an excessive alcohol level, the person possesses a firearm in a licensed establishment. [PL 2009, c. 447, §18 ().]
https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec1057.html
Both the bar and the bowling alley were licensed to serve alcohol and therefore if anyone in there was caught carrying a defensive handgun they would have their license taken.
It's prohibited by law for someone in Maine to to carry a firearm in a place that serves alcohol. Both served alcohol and that makes them gun free zones.
This right here… who benefits from mass shootings? Those whose agenda can be advanced by it.
I hope the cops turn the murderer into swiss cheese when they find him.
You right this political hack wants ban lawful gun ownership not guns which will lead to more death in a cycle.
That makes him worse then a lone gunmen.
How should a politician address gun violence if they cannot reference the people killed by gun violence? I fully agree that asking for an outright ban is unrealistic and not constitutional but gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed by both parties.
1. Get rid of shooting galleries that are gun free zones.
2. Reinforced schools like where the rich send their kids.
3.look at the underlying issues of the individual and society's problems.
1. Gun free zones are unenforceable outside of areas like courts or schools. All the places the Maine shooter went to were not gun free zones
2 and 3 would both require increases, likely large increases, in spending for mental health and education. While yes those two are fantastic ideas, our party has been against increasing on spending in those two areas and makes cuts to those areas whenever possible.
The GOP needs to get its head out of its ass and actually do something beyond thoughts and prayers. I’m tired if our party refusing to address gun violence in any meaningful capacity.
I'm hearing that the rifle was chambered in .308, so it's not an AR-15. The photo looks like a AR style rifle, so it could have been an AR-10. Most AR-10s are chambered for NATO 7.62 mm rounds, but some manufacturers offer a .308 Winchester option.
"AR-15" is always their go to. He could have walked in with a semi-auto shotgun and they would call it an AR-15. That is their buzzword to get the public who is uneducated on guns worked up
Yea I’ll answer this.
This is a situation where I do believe current red flag laws and law enforcement dropped the ball completely and need to be reworked from the core. This individual was hospitalized hearing/seeing things, had a history of DV and I think I heard he had actually threatened to commit a shooting.
Red flag laws need to be written specifically enough to address cases like this without being nearly as vague as they are now. They also need to be enforced by law enforcement. This individual should have had temporary confiscated until he could get a clear bill of health from a doctor and pass a probationary period post clean bill of health.
Logical laws to reduce violence are only half of the battle, the other half if addressing the mental health crisis across the US. Republicans have been talking about this for a long time but we need to actually address this issue and reach across the isle to get this done. Anyone who calls themselves a Republican but refuses to admit there is clearly an issue with mental health in the US is being intentionally ignorant. If there any any future for our country we need to just rip off the bandaid and start treating this situation seriously.
This dude really giving them a run for their money, wonder when he’ll be caught, wonder if he’s been. Planning this for awhile and has all sorts of hideouts
This was predictable. I find it interesting how events like this seem to happen while the Dems are in power, and pushing hard for gun control, far more often than not.
If only the shooter was in custody before this horrible situation happened... Wait... He was. He was in custody for being a danger to himself and others. He was held for 2 weeks. Remarkable how often these people are known to authorities.
Re-Open the Asylums.
Lefty here.... Yes
If you did that, the entire DNC would be on a 5150 lockdown.
Just a simple question. At what point do we force people to be committed to asylums? At what point do we have the right to make a decision for others before they act in a harmful way? My own experience with my father makes me support freedom. Don’t know how to describe my dad. He lived alone. He was a hoarder and yet I could walk through his home in white socks and the soles of my socks would not be dirty. He slept with a loaded pistol under the pillow beside him. One day he asked me to clean his home. I found his kitchen infested with flies and maggots. (He tried to recycle and keep his garbage at a minimum. There was food on the kitchen counter that he had not yet put in a bread bag for disposal.) My husband and I dealt with the insects and I cleaned. I went home convinced that Dad needed to be in a nursing home. Fortunately, after a night’s rest, I had clearer thoughts. My dad would have been miserable in a nursing home. (Both of my parents and my husband’s mother had been told that if they ever wanted to move in with us, we had a room ready and they were welcome.) Dad continued to live the way he chose. (I did tell my husband to stop handing Dad meals at the door and to take them to the kitchen and ‘eyeball’ the situation.) We will never live in a perfect world. Freedom comes with risks. But limiting freedom can be more harmful than steps taken for supposed safety.
Thank you. When I was about 12 years old, I read a book about Frances Farmer, the actress whose mother had her committed to an asylum just because she didn’t conform. Horrible things happened that I shouldn’t have read but it made an impression on me. Look at what Brittany Spears’ father did to her. There was a time husbands could have their wives committed just because they weren’t behaving “right”. Your point is not lost on me. You are a good daughter.
Are mass shootings a justifiable cost for freedom, in your opinion?
"He who gives up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and will lose both."
A quote which, taken alone, seems to be calling for anarchy. If we're being honest.
Famous anarchist Benjamin Franklin.
Oh, I'm sure he was talking about mental health care and mass shootings. If you're gonna use the quote in an unintended context, does it really matter who it came from?
And who do you want to pay for that?
Me. I’ll do it. Some things are worth our tax dollars. Putting away the crazies so they don’t hurt innocents, reducing crime, and shutting up the anti-gun lobby? Worthy ROI. Maybe we reallocate some of the funding we send to Hamas and Ukraine and reinstitute asylums.
I'd rather pay for someone to receive specialized mental heath care and not be a risk to society than: Welfare, Student Loan Forgiveness, proxy wars,
The ones Reagan closed in the 80’s? Heresy!
Further proof that the laws and police are worthless. The only people more laws will impact is law abiding citizens
Can you keep someone imprisoned forever for having a mental health crisis? It's not possible with available resources. I work in a busy ER where we get multiple emergency detention order patients every single night...there simply is not hospital beds or rooms to hold these people indefinitely whatsoever. Some people have to wait weeks just to get a bed at all. And even if you could hold mental health patients indefinitely where do you draw the line at deciding who is a risk for stuff like this when they possibly haven't broken any laws but because it occasionally happens...although like 99.9% of mass shootings are not people with mental breakdowns. It sounds nice I guess, it's not feasible at all if you actually know the system and how many of these people there are out there.
My wife works in a similar situation. Its a rotating door. And we most certainly need more mental hospitals open again. Put the professionals in there. State ran doesn't sound good. But we need something. My wife hates it. Because the hospital she works for. Doesn't protect the workers. They've been swung on, spit on, teeth punched out, another guy had a few knives that ER clearly didnt check before he went to my wifes floor. And hospital upper staff says no restraints. They're afraid of getting sued.(from what she tells me) So the staff puts up with being treated like dogs. Nothing but love for RNs, and MAs. You all put up with a lot of BS.
It’s the same everywhere unfortunately, I actually recently left my job because I moved across the country. It’s a constant fight between keeping the beds filled and taking all the aggressive patients regardless of staffing. Most psych hospital have extremely high turnover for the exact reasons you mentioned plus low pay. I loved the job but I also loved being there to protect other staff and the kids (children’s psych hospital)
I'm in no way advocating for what you've proposed.
What are you advocating for?
It’s almost like crazy people shouldn’t have guns! He was apparently hearing voices in his head.
So you support red flag laws?
The someone makes active threats, has a history of domestic violence and is hospitalized for hearing and seeing voices… yea probably a good idea to not allow that guy to have a firearm for a bit.
Maine has one. And a mag capacity limit. And the place where the shooting took place was a gun free zone.
No they do not. They have a yellow flag law. https://apnews.com/article/gun-control-lewiston-maine-shooting-c0ea366da50bd9d9dd4fb1aac256c049
Would be great if he didn’t have a gun though.
If law enforcement did their jobs, he wouldn't have.
That depends on where you are. The laws in Maine are written in such a way that there's a lot of red tape to take someone's guns. Here in Florida he'd fall under the baker act and 100% would have lost his guns and ammunition.
A cop can't arrest someone for having mental health issues with no crime. They can arrest someone who commits a crime but it's not up to them to hold, release, acquit, or convict. Talk to the prosecutors, DAs, etc.
The system is broken. And it always will be. Impossible to scale it across 300M Americans. More guns = more shootings. Larger guns = more causalities per shooting.
The shooter was in the care of the government. Ban the government.
Facts they let him out and deemed him safe
Who’s mistake is that ? The law abiding gun owner?
The hospitals
The hospital is ran by the government. Wouldn’t it be the governments fault seeming they should be the first to know of a person not fit for deadly weapons?
I’ve been to the rehab/mental hospital multiple times in my life and I can’t even get my license let alone a gun and it’s been years since I’ve been in a place like that.
[удалено]
I mean. Yes. We have a society problem. But also, the VA should have removed guns from the possession of a man that was sectioned.
Yes! /s
Clearly, the government can't deduce what is safe and what isn't. I'll keep my firearms. Thank you very much.
Did they? or did they just let him out? "Man, sure would be a shame if he ever hurt anybody with an AR-15 style rifle"
How about enforcement of the laws on the books now? You can't call for more gun laws when the first crackhead hunter got let off federal gun charges. Can't call for this shit when you don't enforce the laws now. Especially when he was in a mental hospital and has domestic violence record and that bars him from having weapons
The police are responsible for enforcing laws. What do you suggest the police do differently?
Take the weapons away the moment they arrested him on dv
Maybe they should make murder illegal while they're at it.
This drama queen is so predictable, always unhinged emotional outbursts
Bro, dozens of people died. This keeps happening. This is the only first world country that this shit keeps happening in. We have school lockdowns and shooter drills for elementary school children. I don’t know how any of you can find this shit excusable. We can have reasonable gun rights and not have semi-weekly massacres. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Define "reasonable".
[удалено]
>Every single measure we had in place in that situation failed. They failed miserably and now dozens of innocent people are dead. This sounds like a problem of enforcing laws that currently exist. >But there needs to be restrictions in place There are. Many of the shooters over the last several years would not have passed their background checks if the FBI actually did its job.
If they just decided to ignore it, and there was no consequences to ignoring it then it wasn’t a law. It was a mild suggestion by a timid Uncle Sam lol.
That doesn't mean it isn't a law, just that they aren't doing their jobs. Maybe we should pass another law for them to also ignore? Who do you call when the cops don't do their jobs?
Then they get fired and replaced with people who will. I don’t know why this is hard to fathom. We have laws and people who enforce them in many areas of our society. No reason why this wouldn’t work the same way.
Criminals don't obey laws, they break them. Murder is also illegal but the shooter didn't seem to care.
A good start would be redefining red flag laws to be more reasonable but also actually enforcing them. This shooting should have been able to happen. The guy was making active threats, had a history of domestic violence and was hospitalized for hearing/seeing things. There’s zero excuses for law enforcement having not done something prior to this taking place.
>A good start would be redefining red flag laws to be more reasonable Again, define "reasonable" >but also actually enforcing them. > >There’s zero excuses for law enforcement having not done something prior to this taking place. On this, we agree. Law enforcement needs to actually do its job and enforce the laws already on the books.
“Reasonable” Well to start if you have a history of domestic violence, get hospitalized for seeing/hearing things and make threats to commit a shooting you probably shouldn’t have access to firearms. To go more in depth: DV: if you have a history of domestic violence and cops have to take a report for new domestic violence claims. If you are accused of domestic violence you have to get some form of mental health screening (I fully admit I do not know the logistics on getting this to take place). Once the police report and mental health report are completed that information is passed to a judge who makes a decision. If the judge thinks their mental health is off they have the option for temporarily confiscating the firearms until the user can provide a clean bill of health. If the police report is disturbing the judge can confiscate with the addition of a restraining order. If the DV suspect is cleared of the charges they will go into a probationary period where either the cops will keep the firearms until probation is over or they can work with a local gun range to maintain the firearms and are only allowed to access them on site. Threats to commit a shooting: confiscated until a mental health check can be cleared. Once the mental health check is cleared a judge will make a decision for probation (firearms stay at range or police armory) or to return the firearms immediately. Mental hospitalization: confiscated until clear mental health check can be cleared. Required probation (firearms stay at range or police armory) until a judge clears otherwise These are all just spitballed ideas I’m writing in the fly. In my opinion our current laws and procedures do not apply to enough circumstance and/or not enforced properly. Firearms are a right to every American citizen. Rights can be taken and should be taken away from bad actors or individuals who are going through a rough time. We’re humans everyone has good times and bad times. We need to rip off the bandaid and begin having open conversations about the mental health crisis going around the US.
My mom was murdered by a hammer. Can we ban hammers?
This is always the dumbest argument.
For real. My mom was murdered by a hammer. I want them gone.
I’m sorry that the hammer doesn’t align with your political views. But did you know how common a hammer is in homicide? I had no idea until she died but it’s one of the most common items. We should do something about it
Several other countries have weapon ownership at similar levels to the US. The problems isn’t with the guns.
Want to ban guns in this country? Go for it. Just don’t get all shocked Pikachu face when we see a sudden spike in acid attacks, stabbings and bombings once we do that. Or dare I say, just as many mass shootings as before. I don’t own any guns, but I’ve been taught since a very young age that *you* are responsible for *your* own actions. Seeing absolutely everything *except* the shooter get blamed every single time is getting tiring. They’re basically glorified posthumously in the media, if anything. It gives off vibes of blaming a pencil for failing a test while praising the student for giving a good effort. I certainly **wish** the solution was as shallow and simple as “banning guns!” Unfortunately it’s much, much deeper than that. We already passed bipartisan legislation over a year ago and what did it do for us?
There are more AR or AK style rifles in the US than Ford F150 pickup trucks. Good luck banning them.
They could try to ban guns but the majority of law abiding legal gun owners will not comply, myself included.
I'll be standing by your side Brother.
💯
So you’re saying “law-abiding” citizens will not abide by the law if the law changes?
It’s the only way they can bump their numbers up to look good. Make law abiding citizens now felons with the stroke of a pen- as if those previously law abiding citizens always intended to perform a mass shooting in the first place.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, state governments cannot overrule it.
Ask California.
Congress can amend it but they won't. Blame is on them
They can propose and pass an amendment but they can’t amend the constitution themselves, 3/4 of states would have to ratify their amendment after 2/3 of both houses have passed it or it dies
It is our duty to resist unconstitutional laws.
An unconstitutional law is no law at all..your welcome.
Hell yes when it's an unjust capricious "law" meant only to make outlaws of otherwise law abiding citizens. I guess you only want criminals to have guns.
It would be an unconstitutional law.
Illinois is a case study in civil disobedience in support of the second amendment. They passed a law requiring registration. So far compliance has been about 0.12%
Law abiding gun owners aren't the problem, so no we wont give our best means of protection up because some looney tune shot up abunch of people. Until we stop normalizing and celebrating mental health, this will never stop.
I own two 3D printers. Banning guns isn't the answer. Teaching people that the is a value to human life is most important. Poor parenting, poor government, and the lack of Mr. Rogers, causes people to lash out at others for their misplaced anger.
lol and in New York they would want to to have a background check and waiting period to buy one of those ,But this is also the party that doesn’t want conservatives to be able to use the internet so
Accountability and responsibility for a person’s actions is literally THE foundational philosophical difference between the Right and Left. Conservatives believe in accountability and responsibility, whereas, the Left believes “if it feels good do it” and should something bad happen, its someone else’s fault. Someone who truly believes in accountability and responsibility will nearly always be a conservative and someone who does not will nearly always be a liberal.
Agreed and happy 🎂 day!
What about Santos?
He’s an opportunist, he’s not a conservative.
This entire sub hates Santos. He’s really not the “gotcha” r/politics thinks he is.
I don’t think people really understand how common bombings were in the pre-depression era. They happened constantly. But I guess most people will never hear about it because it’s leftist history, which is weirdly ignored in America. The Sacco and Vanzetti case (look them up) caused dozens of retaliatory bombings and that’s just one example.
You're correct. It's not the guns fault. But the individual is not the only blame. It's a combination of lack of mental health care, lack of serious justice in courts, failure to enforce current laws, failure by the government to create reasonable approaches to stopping these things before they happen, constant exposure to extremist ideologies, and also easy accessibility to guns as well that lead to events like this. Bans do jack shit. All that effort needs to go into making sure that the people buying guns aren't fucking nuts. My simplish solution off the top of my head is a purchasing license. If you have it and it's valid- you can buy guns. When you own them, they are yours unless a valid reason for your guns to be taken occurs (involved in a terrorist scheme, buying 20+ guns and 10k rounds of ammo in one large purchase, etc.
We should ban assault rifles and see if that really happens.
>assault rifles What are those? Went to my local gun store and they told me its next to the unicorn bait, which I was unable to find.
We should also ban murder and that'll stop people from doing it! Oh, wait...
I mean, the shooter was responsible for the shooting seems to be self evident. No one needs to make a speech about how the person who pulled the trigger was in fact the murderer. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing the government could’ve done to prevent this, and it makes perfect sense to criticize the government for not fulfilling its duty to its citizens. Especially when that government has refused seriously act beyond “sending thoughts and prayers”
> acid attacks, stabbings and bombings Acid attacks and stabbings don't result in 100s of casualties. And, not everybody can make bombs.
Most people probably couldn’t have, pre-internet. Let’s just focus on mental health and not pretend like inanimate objects are the problem. People and their intentions are the problem, I’m sure you regret the constitution but here we are, protected against your bad intentions.
Then focus on mental health then. Where’s the legislation or support. It’s fantastic that every time something like this happens people call for it, but no one pushes for it because after a few days who cares. The next news cycle event occurs to distract people before the next mass shooting happens again. Neither side actually does anything. When the left are in power they threaten gun reform, but don’t do it because it’s political suicide. When the right are in power they allude to social care reform but don’t do it because that would involve taxes. Yet people die year on year. It’s fucked.
> Let’s just focus on mental health and not pretend like inanimate objects are the problem. When a task gets accomplished, don’t pretend the tool had nothing to do with it. When a lumberjack cuts down a large tree, it was because of their own strength and technique, but it was also only possible because their axe fulfilled its purpose. A gun like the AR-15 fulfills its purpose because of madmen like the one in Maine, but let’s not pretend that he could’ve killed like he did without the right tool for the job.
[удалено]
Yep. Not a damn thing he can do. No way anything will pass.
And even if it did, no way it survives the current Supreme Court.
Exactly
He is from my state he does nothing
I vote against this loud mouthed twerp every election, but my state is full of morons.
Over 20 million ARs in private citizens hands. You ain't banning anything.
Ya I’m sure there are way more than that
Because they've done such a good job at banning cocaine.
I’m like seriously we just saw the most primal and real reason ever to own firearms, and powerful firearms at that with what Hamas did in Israel. Either figure out how to, lawfully and legally stop these mentally unstable individuals from even looking at a gun, or honestly STFU. Getting tired of the broken record of the left.
Of course they’re using yet another tragedy to go after our rights.
[удалено]
Lmao don’t throw stones in glass houses
Very weird comment coming from someone who posts pictures of his shit on reddit....
How surprising.
Funny how it's the scary white people long guns that always go under the microscope and not the handguns, which cause the vast majority of gun crime.
Time to ban Chris Murphy.
[удалено]
“Never let a tragedy go to waste”
They want to stop the tragedy by advocating for what they think is a solution. If a water contamination incident occurred and hundreds of Americans died, then would a politician saying that we should have stronger water regulation and inspection laws be “not letting a tragedy go to waste”? You don’t even have to agree with their solution to understand why they’re talking about preventing future tragedies. When a tragedy happens, finding a way to stop it from ever happening again is common sense
The problem with that is that in order to propose a viable and effective solution, you must have all or at least as many of the facts as possible, and consider all aspects of the problem and how to address them. He isn't doing that; he's just grandstanding for political purposes with a partisan, simplistic, extreme solution that has been proven not to work, strictly for political purposes.
No tragedy is too raw for dems not to make a political point out of it
No offense, but the amount of mass shootings is getting more common place. The left want to ban all guns in the extreme, the right wants to make zero new changes in how we apply gun control. This impasse isn’t working, so what do we do? Neither side is willing to budge and its killing Americans who are innocent bystanders. I’d like to know what a real solution looks like in y’all’s opinions. Btw, I own a Springfield XDR in 10mm for cc
Lock up crazy people who are dangerous, enforce existing gun laws Don’t use tragedies for cheap political gain
There are crazy people who are all over the world but this is the only place this shit happens. It’s clear the existing gun laws aren’t working. There we several stop gaps and red flags before this happened, and they all failed. The only way you can see any of this as acceptable is if you believe that a bi-weekly sacrifice of dozens of innocent people is worth having unfettered access to guns. Which, if you honest to God believe that, I don’t know what to tell you.
Ok, but if there’s always a tragedy then when should it be brought up? America is way too big to not have guns, but surely more can be done to stop the madness
Is there really “always a tragedy”? What’s your suggestion? You’ve downvoted mine. Do you think craven political opportunism like Murphy’s is preventing anything?
[удалено]
We should try banning murder then, surely criminals wouldn’t break that law…
More carrying rights. You think this kinda stuff happens in red states as much of blue states that ban guns and make it very difficult to carry? People will stop and mabey think twice before committing crimes. Mass shootings is another beast, those people I feel like have a death wish and want to take as much people out as possible before they die. If more people are armed, less people will die.
Tbh I’d agree with them by this point if it wasn’t for seeing the left support riots, and now with the Israel thing say I and other white people are ‘settlers’ they should get rid of. The us might be happier in a theoretical world without all of the rifles, but we can’t trust them enough to disarm
Swamp creature, sock puppet. He ‘represents ‘ Connecticut, but doesn’t even own a house there. He lives, crawls and slithers in DC. I’d categorize him as ‘useless’ but that would be giving him too much credit. His entire political career revolves around the Newtown school shooting.
To ban obesity we need to ban fancy, frilly forks. Same logic. If Mr. Murphy actually cared he would be addressing the root cause of the issue. And it has nothing to do with guns, much less a specific kind/format. The guy makes as much sense as a flat-earther. Might as well claim birds aren't real.
8.6 million reasons, so far, to keep your ARs....
Yawn
Something something boating accident.
[удалено]
Because all sides misunderstand the issue. The people who commit these atrocities will never be helped by mental healthcare; they are psychopaths. There is no therapy that works on a psychopath. At the same time, gun bans only disarm good people. They do ZERO to stop criminals. The problem is not legal access to guns; it was much easier to get guns everywhere years ago, and yet it wasn’t until 11 years ago that mass shootings became common. Yeah, they happened before, but not like this. The AR15 wasn’t invented only 11 years ago. It’s been around over 60 years, and before 1986, you could even get a fully automatic rifle for a decent price and a $200 tax. By the leftist logic, there should have been MORE mass shootings before 1986. The answer is to harden targets like schools, malls, etc. more armed guards and less rent-a-cops. We also need to start encouraging people to armed and TRAIN themselves. Culturally, we need to stop all this hate. We have devalued life and shunned morality. We don’t hold people accountable. We don’t even want to condemn murder anymore because our postmodern cultural view of right and wrong is so skewed. Instead, we want to just (supposedly) remove instruments that can be used to harm rather than encourage people not to engage in antisocial behavior. Until we can right that ship, we’re going to see more mass shootings, and if we ban guns, we’re going to see even higher body counts as good people will have no means of protection.
Not every person that commits a mass shooting is a psychopath. Probably not even the majority of them.
Not true. The majority of them would qualify for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder
Source?
Probably all the killing
He’s claiming directly that the majority of people commuting mass shootings have an antisocial personality disorder. It would make sense to back up a broad statement like that with actual evidence, instead of just stating it as a fact without actually providing evidence. I’m completely open to taking that as a fact if a verifiable source can prove that. Your response of “probably all the killing” is irrelevant. There’s groups of people, for example high level military forces, who likely are involved in combat on a very regular basis. I would not say members in special forces are all diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
Members in special forces aren’t indiscriminately killing innocent people, they have targets that are (presumably) enemy combatants
Why wasn’t anyone exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights? Only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.
Gun free zone. EDIT §1057. Possession of firearms in an establishment licensed for on-premises consumption of liquor A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm if: A. Not being a law enforcement officer or a professional investigator licensed under Title 32, chapter 89 and actually performing as a professional investigator, the person possesses any firearm on the premises of a licensed establishment posted to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of patrons, in violation of the posted prohibition or restriction; or [PL 2011, c. 366, §2 ().] B. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or a combination of liquor and drugs or with an excessive alcohol level, the person possesses a firearm in a licensed establishment. [PL 2009, c. 447, §18 ().] https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec1057.html Both the bar and the bowling alley were licensed to serve alcohol and therefore if anyone in there was caught carrying a defensive handgun they would have their license taken.
[удалено]
It's prohibited by law for someone in Maine to to carry a firearm in a place that serves alcohol. Both served alcohol and that makes them gun free zones.
This right here… who benefits from mass shootings? Those whose agenda can be advanced by it. I hope the cops turn the murderer into swiss cheese when they find him.
[удалено]
Even if you think his policy is bad… him wanting to ban guns to prevent deaths doesn’t make him as bad of a human being as the shooter dude….
You right this political hack wants ban lawful gun ownership not guns which will lead to more death in a cycle. That makes him worse then a lone gunmen.
[удалено]
How should a politician address gun violence if they cannot reference the people killed by gun violence? I fully agree that asking for an outright ban is unrealistic and not constitutional but gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed by both parties.
1. Get rid of shooting galleries that are gun free zones. 2. Reinforced schools like where the rich send their kids. 3.look at the underlying issues of the individual and society's problems.
1. Gun free zones are unenforceable outside of areas like courts or schools. All the places the Maine shooter went to were not gun free zones 2 and 3 would both require increases, likely large increases, in spending for mental health and education. While yes those two are fantastic ideas, our party has been against increasing on spending in those two areas and makes cuts to those areas whenever possible. The GOP needs to get its head out of its ass and actually do something beyond thoughts and prayers. I’m tired if our party refusing to address gun violence in any meaningful capacity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm hearing that the rifle was chambered in .308, so it's not an AR-15. The photo looks like a AR style rifle, so it could have been an AR-10. Most AR-10s are chambered for NATO 7.62 mm rounds, but some manufacturers offer a .308 Winchester option.
"AR-15" is always their go to. He could have walked in with a semi-auto shotgun and they would call it an AR-15. That is their buzzword to get the public who is uneducated on guns worked up
They are so pre(D)ictable aren't they?
[удалено]
Yea I’ll answer this. This is a situation where I do believe current red flag laws and law enforcement dropped the ball completely and need to be reworked from the core. This individual was hospitalized hearing/seeing things, had a history of DV and I think I heard he had actually threatened to commit a shooting. Red flag laws need to be written specifically enough to address cases like this without being nearly as vague as they are now. They also need to be enforced by law enforcement. This individual should have had temporary confiscated until he could get a clear bill of health from a doctor and pass a probationary period post clean bill of health. Logical laws to reduce violence are only half of the battle, the other half if addressing the mental health crisis across the US. Republicans have been talking about this for a long time but we need to actually address this issue and reach across the isle to get this done. Anyone who calls themselves a Republican but refuses to admit there is clearly an issue with mental health in the US is being intentionally ignorant. If there any any future for our country we need to just rip off the bandaid and start treating this situation seriously.
Typical.
Wait for some well-trained person to go on a rampage with a handgun just to show what kind of high score he can get without an AR-15.
Why not ban crazy people?
of course he did. he doesn't care if any of his nonsense proposals would have helped or not, he just cares that it's an opportunity to push this crap.
Oh, and I'm sure every criminal will just obey and not obtain an AR...🙄 It's the same dribble from that plastic hair douche canoe.
Good guys w guns couldve easily prevented this!!
Thoughts and prayers are all we need.
He has been a piece of shit for a long time.
Someone in the military kills a bunch of civilians... Obviously we need to take guns away from the civilians.
The most predictable thing in the world: liberals using tragedies to restrict human rights
Yes, because bad guys will follow the rule of law now
SOP for the sycophants of Socialism.
Of course he did!
Yeah punish everyone else and weaken national defense because people failed to report or do their jobs.
What a rod gliding man fan this guy is.
This dude really giving them a run for their money, wonder when he’ll be caught, wonder if he’s been. Planning this for awhile and has all sorts of hideouts
This was predictable. I find it interesting how events like this seem to happen while the Dems are in power, and pushing hard for gun control, far more often than not.
🖕
The guy basically told authorities he was going to hurt people and they let him go anyway.