Alright, I've had it with guns already!

[rajncajn]

 

Apparently this dirt bag passed 4 background checks allowing him to purchase the guns. WTF good do background checks do if they don't keep guns out of the hands of people who threaten to kill people and kill themselves?

[stevegrab]

15 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

"NEW: Lake County Sheriff’s office just said police had been called on suspected Highland Park shooter Robert Crimo in 2019, after he threatened to “kill everyone” in his family. They seized 16 knives.

He was later able to legally buy 5 firearms before yesterday’s mass shooting."

'Strictest' gun laws.

 

Whatever system is in place in Illinois to prevent the mentally ill from getting firearms is broken. I was reading this story earlier, explains that when they took his sword and knives after threats to kill his family he was not arrested, in part because his family would not press charges. But if he was a clear and present danger to his family, and had weapons taken from him, and state police were notified in a "clear and present danger report". Why wasn't that a red flag when he applied for a license to own guns? And why would his father vouch for him on the application? 

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/06/1109987663/highland-park-parade-shooting-suspect-robert-crimo-iii

 

"But because Crimo did not then have a FOID card – a firearm owner's identification card that is issued by Illinois State Police and required for gun ownership – nor an application to deny, the state police said, their "involvement with the matter was concluded."

Three months later, Crimo, then 19, applied for a FOID card. His application was sponsored by his father, and was approved by state police in January 2020.

Later that year, Crimo passed three background checks to purchase guns, authorities said. He passed a fourth check on Sept. 20, 2021, his 21st birthday."

 

The article continues with more explanation, basically when asked if he was planning to harm people he said NO and nobody in the family was willing to push it. 

 

Sounds like his father is a piece of work, claims the knives were his being stored in the sons closet, then sponsors his kids FOID application.

[gilthorp]

On 7/6/2022 at 6:42 AM, rajncajn said:

 

Apparently this dirt bag passed 4 background checks allowing him to purchase the guns. WTF good do background checks do if they don't keep guns out of the hands of people who threaten to kill people and kill themselves?

 

Nobody in the family stepped up to admit he was a danger. In this case, the parents need to be held accountable for something as well. 

 

Could have been a much larger mass murder as he drove to Madison, WI immediately following and backed off a plan to shoot up another event. 

 

 

The easy access to these high powered rifles is the issue. If someone wants them, make them prove they are trained and sane over a course of multiple years. It's the only answer I can think of. 

[stevegrab]

39 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

 

Nobody in the family stepped up to admit he was a danger. In this case, the parents need to be held accountable for something as well. 

 

Could have been a much larger mass murder as he drove to Madison, WI immediately following and backed off a plan to shoot up another event. 

 

 

The easy access to these high powered rifles is the issue. If someone wants them, make them prove they are trained and sane over a course of multiple years. It's the only answer I can think of. 

 

Yep the parents really dropped the ball here, then Dad actually took him to get his license to buy guns and sponsored him. All after those threats. I doubt that many on the pro-gun side would agree with allowing more strict red flag laws, that would include a review that would have caught this (no criminal charges, no restraining orders, no mental health crisis that included being evaluated by professional or put into therapy). 

 

The bolded makes too much sense so it probably has no chance of happening. Requiring somebody to own other guns first, without using them irresponsibly or in crimes before you can graduate to the big guns sounds fair. 

 

I know they have something similar in most of Europe with regard to licensing for motorcycles. You cannot just get your MC license at 18 and walk into your local dealer and buy that 200MPH sport bike. I think that translates well to the sale of various types of guns.

 

Yes I know the right to own guns is in the constitution but not the right do operate a motor vehicle. Doesn't mean we cannot have sensible legislation to control access to the most deadly of weapons. Or we can keep doing mostly nothing about the access to these weapons and pay some lip service to "mental health". Its pretty clear neither this guy nor his parents thought he needed help, so I don't think any changes there would help in this case. 

 

I was reading about the shooting that was prevented in Richmond VA on 4th of July. Somebody heard something about a plot to shoot up an event, and they reported to police, who acted and prevented it. Maybe people are afraid of getting others in trouble, for something that may have just been a bad joke. But there were plenty of signs this guy was trouble, and not a single person who saw them spoke up. 

[rajncajn]

52 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

 

Nobody in the family stepped up to admit he was a danger. In this case, the parents need to be held accountable for something as well. 

 

Could have been a much larger mass murder as he drove to Madison, WI immediately following and backed off a plan to shoot up another event. 

 

 

The easy access to these high powered rifles is the issue. If someone wants them, make them prove they are trained and sane over a course of multiple years. It's the only answer I can think of. 

Agree, and by the looks of it the parents are still in total denial and looking for someone else to blame.

[League_Champion]

Did you see that Kid? I wouldn't sell him a bottle of water, how the hell did they let him get a gun? The system is broke, not the gun. 

[gilthorp]

I agree. The gun, or mass murder tool works just fine. 70+ rounds in 20 seconds, with 5-6 seconds to reload. It's perfect, so great.

[stevegrab]

13 hours ago, League_Champion said:

Did you see that Kid? I wouldn't sell him a bottle of water, how the hell did they let him get a gun? The system is broke, not the gun. 

 

That's an interesting view from a pro gun person. Didn't realize that how somebody looks nullifies their 2nd amendment rights. Curious who else wouldn't you sell guns to based on how they look? And would that be legal? 

 

And how long would you stay in business if you refused to make all these sales. 

[League_Champion]

22 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

That's an interesting view from a pro gun person. Didn't realize that how somebody looks nullifies their 2nd amendment rights. Curious who else wouldn't you sell guns to based on how they look? And would that be legal? 

 

And how long would you stay in business if you refused to make all these sales. 

 

Steven, don't take everything so literal. You'll be a happier person for it. 

[stevegrab]

8 hours ago, League_Champion said:

 

Steven, don't take everything so literal. You'll be a happier person for it. 

 

The next time you make a serious post will be the first. You've been the class clown and Doctor Stupid since arriving here. 

 

Are you this immature in real life? 

[irish]

14 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

The next time you make a serious post will be the first. You've been the class clown and Doctor Stupid since arriving here. 

 

Are you this immature in real life? 

Why have you not put him on ignore?  Mind boggling.  We both know and agree he's nothing but an annoying irritant, you'll open up time in your life with not having to respond. 

[League_Champion]

8 minutes ago, irish said:

Why have you not put him on ignore?  Mind boggling.  We both know and agree he's nothing but an annoying irritant, you'll open up time in your life with not having to respond. 

 

Because I don't always agree with you? And I'm immature? 

[Bobby Brown]

4 hours ago, irish said:

Why have you not put him on ignore?  Mind boggling.  We both know and agree he's nothing but an annoying irritant, you'll open up time in your life with not having to respond. 

I don't get how anyone could let his buffonery get under their skin.  He has the trolling technique of a pre teen with zero originality or wit.  

Edited July 10, 2022 by Bobby Brown

[gilthorp]

He post meme.

[Bobby Brown]

16 hours ago, gilthorp said:

He post meme.

Me no make good point with words.  So me post meme.

[darin3]

On 7/9/2022 at 1:45 PM, Bobby Brown said:

I don't get how anyone could let his buffonery get under their skin.  He has the trolling technique of a pre teen with zero originality or wit.  

 

It's not necessarily "getting under ones skin"... it's just the constant barrage of weak takes that have eventually gotten to a point where the forums, as a whole, are a better read without the BS.

[Bobby Brown]

10 hours ago, darin3 said:

 

It's not necessarily "getting under ones skin"... it's just the constant barrage of weak takes that have eventually gotten to a point where the forums, as a whole, are a better read without the BS.

I certainly understand that.  I guess I find it easy to scroll past and/or make a comment about when the mood arises.

[stevegrab]

9 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

I certainly understand that.  I guess I find it easy to scroll past and/or make a comment about when the mood arises.

 

Just to follow up on this discussion, I've had LC on ignore for a long time, but since his posts dominate the forum, and he is often commenting on what I say I have read many of his posts, and responded. 

 

I am trying really hard now to just ignore, and not read. I still see some since others will respond to him, and I may then occasionally comment on his absurdity.  Not sure if that will help the discussions or not.

[League_Champion]

5 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

Just to follow up on this discussion, I've had LC on ignore for a long time, but since his posts dominate the forum, and he is often commenting on what I say I have read many of his posts, and responded. 

 

I am trying really hard now to just ignore, and not read. I still see some since others will respond to him, and I may then occasionally comment on his absurdity.  Not sure if that will help the discussions or not.

 

If it fits your narrative, cancel me. Think I give a shizz? 

[League_Champion]

Thank God for the armed civilian. He saved numerous lives.

 

https://www.aol.com/2-killed-shooting-indiana-mall-001121029-003802848.html

 

Two people were killed in a shooting Sunday evening at a mall in Greenwood, Indiana, and multiple other people were taken to hospitals with injuries. 

[stevegrab]

In light of the recent mall shooting in Indianapolis, and the armed citizen who took down the gunman....I figure this mall was a gun free zone (confirmed in news story from a Fox station), as most retail places are (at least around here). So that means both the shooter and the one who shot him were violating that rule by carrying inside the mall. (is it illegal, is there some punishment if people have weapons in the mall?  I'm not sure, in this case the story indicates it was not illegal. I know, people will say "of course the murderer was not going to follow the law, and would also obtain their weapons illegally if needed".  But what about the good guy with a gun who neutralized the threat. Are we just expecting now that a "no weapons" sign is OK to ignore? 

 

How many of you who carry regularly do that, and take your gun in places where the business has prohibited it?  I assume if it is someplace like a court house that will search you, that you won't do it. 

 

This story will simply encourage more people to be armed, and to carry their gun where prohibited. I know some here will disagree with me, but more armed people, all over including in stores and theaters will not be a good thing. 

 

https://fox59.com/news/good-samaritan-with-a-gun-stopped-greenwood-park-mall-shooting-went-against-malls-code-of-conduct/

[stevegrab]

I'm reading now that apparently carrying a gun into a business with a rule against weapons is not illegal, you could be charged with trespassing if you entered after being told you could not, or refused to leave. (Based on a story relating to the recent shooting in Indy.) Doesn't that seem messed up? Especially considering the relaxed concealed carry laws that are present or coming in some states? (Both Ohio and soon Indiana allow any person not legally prohibited from owning a gun to conceal carry, no training, no permit, nothing.) Its not like a no shirt/shoes rule that is obvious when walk thru the door. 

 

 

 

 

[1fastdoc]

6 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

I'm reading now that apparently carrying a gun into a business with a rule against weapons is not illegal, you could be charged with trespassing if you entered after being told you could not, or refused to leave. (Based on a story relating to the recent shooting in Indy.) Doesn't that seem messed up? Especially considering the relaxed concealed carry laws that are present or coming in some states? (Both Ohio and soon Indiana allow any person not legally prohibited from owning a gun to conceal carry, no training, no permit, nothing.) Its not like a no shirt/shoes rule that is obvious when walk thru the door. 

 

 

 

 

 

It definitely creates a very gray area when it comes to prosecution.  And do we keep it lax in a mall but more strict in a school or hospital?  Most hospitals have no gun signs but many MD's carry.  I had a pt come in once with a 1911 on his hip, nobody cared or even looked twice.  But then this is TN, where most of us think that "no carry" signs are stupid.  

[stevegrab]

2 minutes ago, 1fastdoc said:

 

It definitely creates a very gray area when it comes to prosecution.  And do we keep it lax in a mall but more strict in a school or hospital?  Most hospitals have no gun signs but many MD's carry.  I had a pt come in once with a 1911 on his hip, nobody cared or even looked twice.  But then this is TN, where most of us think that "no carry" signs are stupid.  

 

Hmm, maybe the No Weapons signs don't apply to people who work somewhere. I remember reading that was the case in a bar (bartender can be armed but patrons cannot). I know we had signs at our office, our owner was into hunting and several other employees were into guns. Never heard any of them complaining they had to leave their guns at home or in the car. 

 

As for people thinking the "no carry" signs are stupid, lots of people think certain laws and rules are stupid. Like a small town bar a friend told me about where everybody still smokes, but when an outsider walks in everybody scurries to hide ashtrays. They just ignore the indoor smoking ban since the majority of their customers want to smoke, probably employees do. 

 

 

[rajncajn]

43 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

I'm reading now that apparently carrying a gun into a business with a rule against weapons is not illegal, you could be charged with trespassing if you entered after being told you could not, or refused to leave. (Based on a story relating to the recent shooting in Indy.) Doesn't that seem messed up? Especially considering the relaxed concealed carry laws that are present or coming in some states? (Both Ohio and soon Indiana allow any person not legally prohibited from owning a gun to conceal carry, no training, no permit, nothing.) Its not like a no shirt/shoes rule that is obvious when walk thru the door. 

Different states have different laws regarding where you can and cannot carry. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by rajncajn