Well, Its Official

Status
Not open for further replies.
Florida got a 'RedFlag' law within weeks of the Parkland/Stoneman-Douglas shooting.
Last report I saw has my, Pinellas County leading the state in confiscation due to folks being red flagged.
Since 99+% of gun owners will never use a firearm criminally, how will the 1% be identified?
Collective punishment and collective guilt heaped on the law abiding scares me most of all.
 
You know, social media is very easy to not use or be deceptive with. I have Facebook and use it for nothing but FB Marketplace. I don’t post anything. I have no information about me and zero friends.

I helped my dad set up a similar account because he also likes perusing for sale ads.

Good luck with that.
 
Keep in mind that the government has access to most of your medical records through Medicare, Medicaid, social security, disability not to mention the large insurance companies are intimately tied to the government. If you fill out a form at the doctors office or hospital it will ask you if you are or have been depressed. Answering yes puts you at risk of being labelled unstable.
 
I like the idea of red flag laws. Buuuuuut...I do think if a law like was made, it could be used to justify some bad stuff. Now I do have a bit of biases in that concern; as I belong to a group of people that were deemed dangerous to the people of 1930s and 40s Germany. Then we couldn’t have guns, then we got some armsbands, and then we had some trains to ride...you get the point. So that’s my problem with red flag laws.
 
It would be a dangerous path to start criminalizing what one is capable of doing. Fortunately, we have a system of "innocent until proven guilty". The only recourse we have is to provide stiff penalties for law-breakers. Unfortunately, we live in a day and age devoid of personal responsibility, where criminals have total disregard for the results of their actions, both inflicted and personal.

Ill-ANNOY still has laws on the books with reference to "unlawful use of a weapon" as well as "exemptions" to those specific charges. The problem is that a defendant has to prove they are eligible to use those exemptions before they can use those exemptions. That kind of defeats the presumption of innocence.
 
https://www.heraldtribune.com/zz/ne...ice-most-mass-attackers-follow-these-patterns

Finding show most all spree killers have violent backgrounds, mental issues and posted warnings about themselves on social media of some sort.
All of these may have been prevented? Is it possible the .gov is ignoring these folks on purpose?

These are good questions...however, there IS NO WAY TO PREVENT ALL THESE IN REAL LIFE.

Look at what it would take to even begin to approach such a goal, laudable though it is.

20/20 hindsight is both a humbling thing AND an arrogant thing.

"If we had only (fill in the blank)."

Yeah, well scale that up to 350 million people across wide spectrums of political, social, economic, ethnic, and cultural spectrums. Then take a look at all the shades of gray involved and what must be done to balance our freedoms, liberties, and rights against the actions people think would be "required" in order to affect such a goal.

Yes, there are many warning signs.

Yes, we should be looking out for them.

Yes, we should take action where deemed essential for people's safety.

No, we cannot do this to such a level without taking away all our liberties, freedoms, and rights.
 
To those interested in the 20 page report itself, Homeland Security Digital Library, US Secret Service "Mass Attacks in Public Spaces - 2018" [open pdf - 3MB]:
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=826876

In addition there are the FBI Active Shooter Incident reports (public shooting sprees where police or bystanders were in a position to intervene):
Schweit, Katherine W., "Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2014 and 2015", Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016
_ https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooterincidentsus_2014-2015.pdf
"Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017", Federal Bureau of Investigation, April 2018.
_ https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf

FBI Active Shooter Incident reports 2014-2015 and 2016-2017 note that of a total 90 incidents, 14 active shooters were stopped by bystanders who were not police. The FBI 2016-2017 report stated: "Their selfless actions likely saved many lives."
In the fourteen successful interventions:
7 unarmed citizens confronted, restrained, blocked, or talked the shooter into surrender.
1 citizen with pepper spray restrained the shooter.
4 citizens with firearms permits exchanged gunfire with the shooter.
2 citizens with firearms permits detained the shooter at gunpoint for arrest by responding police.
In three other incidents, citizens with firearms permits intervened without success:
1 was killed.
1 was wounded.
1 forced the shooter to flee the original crime scene.
I find no incident in the FBI reports of responding police shooting a citizen who was acting in defense of self or others or who was detaining the spree shooter.

Of active shooter incidents meeting the FBI definition, citizens with firearms permits intervened in 9 incidents, 1 out of 10.


ADDED:
Apples, and Oranges, and Pears, Oh My.

Mass Attack in a Public Space, to the USSS, is defined as an incident "during which three or more persons were harmed", not necessarily killed, carried out in a public place. "[W]e included acts of intentional violence in public (e.g., parks, community events, retail establishments) or semi-public (e.g., workplaces, schools, religious establishments) places during which significant harm was caused to three or more persons [regardless of weapon(s) used]. We excluded violence related to criminal acts (e.g., gang or drug activity), failed attempts at a mass attack, or spontaneous group violence [riot, flash mob, etc]."
Active Shooter Incident, to the FBI, is defined as "a situation in which a shooting is in progress" and "both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses", regardless of body count.
Mass Killing, to federal law enforcement, is defined as three or more (not counting the killer) dead from any cause. Mass killings are not solely mass shootings.
For 2016-2017, 40% of Active Shooter Incidents also met the definition of Mass Killing.

United States Secret Service (USSS) Mass Attack in a Public Space definition appears to include FBI Active Shooter Incident.
Active Shooter Incident (a shooting in public where police or bystanders could intervene) may have no one harmed or killed, or may meet Mass Attack in a Public Space if three or more harmed, or meet Mass Killing if three or more are killed.

But, FBI Active Shooter Incident and USSS Mass Attack in a Public Space exclude crimes in private places without witnesses other than perpetrator(s) and victim(s), such as the typical gang violence or most assaults or homicides, which usually occur when and where there is no chance of response by law enforcement or bystanders.
Excellent data, thank you very much for posting this.
 
The government doesn't have to keep tabs. Living in Broward County where the POS got his 15 mins of fame at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas School I followed the story pretty closely and the dropped balls by many government agencies from BSO to FBI were glaring and frightening. Several people "saw something" and then "said something", unfortunately they said something to stone statues, apparently. The little troll (I refuse to say his name) wasn't investigated very thoroughly, he was even expelled for bringing bullets to school. Nothing flagged in FDLE computer so he passed a background check. ]
I want someone reported to the police to be investigated, at least. Not a full breach SWAT raid, but at least begin looking into their social media and interviewing other acquaintances.
$0.02 fine for excessive logic.
 
Any armed citizen needs to stand down whenever LEO arrive on site. Just like in first aid where a person renders aid until professional medical personnel arrive, once the pros get there it's time to let them handle it, if for no reason other than it's impossible for them to determine who is who in a situation and they have to assume anyone without 6" high letters spelling out POLICE on their backs is a bad guy.
I'm glad you brought this up. That is definitely the correct thing to do but I wonder whether a citizen responder even realizes police are there? This never occurred to me before, but if one is experiencing tunnel vision and only sees the active shooter... ?
 
I'm glad you brought this up. That is definitely the correct thing to do but I wonder whether a citizen responder even realizes police are there? This never occurred to me before, but if one is experiencing tunnel vision and only sees the active shooter... ?

Part of the training I've received is anti-tunnel vision related. I've been trained to be aware of my surroundings, not just the one perceived subject as he might have friends that pop up to engage a pursuer. Also to be aware of other units arriving on scene as sometimes there are off duty responders who aren't suited up with any clothing that announces that they're good guys. Police also need to be aware that someone running away from them with a firearm isn't a threat to them and doesn't need to be shot. I assume that the pursuing citizen wasn't chasing someone toward the incoming police.
 
It's a tough call, but most gun owners oppose everything that would help.

Remember, it is gun owners who most strongly oppose doing just this.

With the hundreds of thousands of gun laws already on the books, the opposition is because you can't legislate-away or eliminate deranged or criminal behavior through laws or focusing a minority-report enforcement on non-criminals. Part of the risk of living in a free society is simply dealing with such whackos, often after they "break the law". The government has proven time and time again that laws don't work for those intent on doing harm to others or non-adjudicated, mentally ill individuals (without a criminal background) from passing a background check when purchasing a firearm.

Gun owners already suffer from numerous restrictions, higher product taxes, demonization, waiting-periods, intrusive/repetitive criminal background checks, etc. Why should gun owners concede to more "punishment" yet are not even remotely part of the problem? As already noted, many of these perpetrators had a significant criminal record or law-enforcement profile, very clear issues with mental issues (although not adjudicated), etc. I think if we can just raise the age limit to 25 years old for any Social Media acces, mandate a three-day waiting period for any Social Media public postings, require criminal and mental background checks and possibly a tax for any Social Media platform purchases, and institute a mandatory Social Media device safe-storage requirement to keep under age users from having access...that would most definitely be worth infringing on personal liberties if it saves just one life from cyber bullying or posting a suicidal-manifesto. Do you think that would get any opposition?

I'm being satirical of course and understand your overall question, I just think bringing gun-owners in as the problem or the focus of future regulations is counterproductive.

ROCK6
 
We claim we want Big Brother to watch for those tell tell signs, but then get upset when they suspend a kid for joking about blowing up his school or wanting to take the guns from a vet with possible PTSD, that has threatened to shoot his neighbors. Hard to have it both ways. The line is very thin and very shallow and folks seem to have a real difficult time agreeing on where it really needs to be drawn.

We as individuals need to be more aware of what's going on around us, and in our neighborhood. We need to address or report when we think there is a legitimate threat to innocents. We need to look out for others that are not as observant and/or aware as we are. We need to do this, not expect someone else to.
 
The opposition from gun owners comes from the fact that this subject HAS NO "COMPROMISE".

One argument from the pro-gun control crowd is that we should compromise on the issue of the RKBA so that we can (fill in the blank).

A compromise is a give and take from BOTH sides in order to reach some common ground.

The problem is that the RKBA side ends up all give and the pro-gun control side ends up all take. That is the nature of the beast with this.
 
I know of one incident that will probably upset the apple cart. I thought it had been discussed on THR.
https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.co...ed-thanksgiving-galleria-shooting/2778689002/

Short synopsis, there was a shooting at the Galleria in Hoover AL. Hoover PD respond and see a man running with a pistol in his hand, some said to confront the gunman. He was ordered to stand and didn't comply. I wasn't there, but consensus seems to be that he was going to confront the shooter, somehow didn't hear the officer or didn't think HE was the one who needed to stop, and he was shot and killed.

Tragedy, but as a private citizen, you have to be aware that as soon as the Police arrive you need to STAND DOWN! You may know more about the situation than they do, but they can only react to what they see happening when they arrive.
 
I've been in a few situations like that and almost shot a complainant once when we responded. He was running around outside with a pistol, chasing the guy he caught in the house. Fortunately he DID put the gun down, and we sorted through it. We all parted on friendly terms and he asked if I would have shot him. I told him, in my best ominous tone of voice, that I was glad he put the pistol down, and we'd never really have to find out.
 
https://www.heraldtribune.com/zz/ne...ice-most-mass-attackers-follow-these-patterns

Finding show most all spree killers have violent backgrounds, mental issues and posted warnings about themselves on social media of some sort.
All of these may have been prevented? Is it possible the .gov is ignoring these folks on purpose?
The one item I did not see mentioned was THE most obvious to all here.
ALL these attacks were in GUN FREE ZONES,with so few exceptions as to not count.
Would have been 'nice' if that was made a headline !
 
We claim we want Big Brother to watch for those tell tell signs,
No, not really. I want a citizenry to mention ominous signs to the police. Then I want the authorities to at least investigate the report.

but then get upset when they suspend a kid for joking about blowing up his school
Joking about shooting up/blowing up a school, a bomb in luggage, poisoning a water supply, tampering with food at a grocery store and other such idiocies is incredibly stupid. That said, it's carried a bit far when someone is suspended for biting their pop tart in the shape of a gun. Rotate it 90 degrees and it might be a city skyline.

or wanting to take the guns from a vet with possible PTSD, that has threatened to shoot his neighbors.
Communicating a threat is a crime. They should be arrested and as part of the arrest their ability to carry out the threat, i.e.use their guns should be abrogated by removing their firearms for the duration.

Hard to have it both ways.
Don't want it both ways, want the police to do their jobs and I want a citizenry that works hand in hand with the LEOs to birdog some of crazies posting these things online or saying them within the hearing of others.

The line is very thin and very shallow and folks seem to have a real difficult time agreeing on where it really needs to be drawn.
That's the basis for a good discussion, not a debate and definitely not a shouting match. Education is a key here and a media that actually puts out real information, not opinion masquerading as news. The media's agenda should be informing the public, but looking back at history I don't know if it ever was entirely their goal.

We as individuals need to be more aware of what's going on around us, and in our neighborhood. We need to address or report when we think there is a legitimate threat to innocents. We need to look out for others that are not as observant and/or aware as we are. We need to do this, not expect someone else to.
Yes, wholeheartedly.
 
Remember Richard Jewel, the accused bomber during the 1996 olympics in Atlanta. He matched the profile perfectly, had his life ruined and by the time they figured out he was a hero, not the bomber it was too late.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

Thanks for mentioning this, I'd forgotten about this incident. Bad outcome for him for sure, but I don't remembering hearing anything about the Libel lawsuits and resulting settlements.

From the wikipedia:
A Justice Department investigation of the FBI's conduct found the FBI had tried to manipulate Jewell into waiving his constitutional rights, by telling him he was taking part in a training film about bomb detection, although the report concluded "no intentional violation of Mr. Jewell's civil rights and no criminal misconduct" had taken place.[7][8][9]

Look like the Justice Department covering up FBI malfeasance has been going on for a long time :(
 
My parents came here from Poland after WW2, during which quite a few of my family members did not survive the Nazis. Much of my family stayed and lived under the thumb of the Soviet Union. There's a lot of truth to what you posted.
AMEN!

My former in-laws fled Hungary as teens after my former FIL was killing Russians in the uprising...they survived both Nazi and Communist rule...

Stay safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top