Disaster Hostage situation ends in 4 children dead

Article

An Orlando man who barricaded himself in an apartment complex in the central Florida city for 21 hours killed four children he took hostage before killing himself, police said late Monday.

The tragedy began when officers arrived at an apartment complex near the Universal Orlando theme park late Sunday after a woman said she been battered by the suspect, whom she described as her boyfriend, police said.

Orlando Police Chief John Mina answers questions at an afternoon news conference during a hostage standoff Monday, June 11, 2018, in Orlando, Fla. Police said …Police: Suspect holds four kids hostage after shooting Orlando cop

Mina said that the officer, Kevin Valencia, was listed in critical condition with "very significant injuries" but is expected to survive.

Over the course of the standoff, Mina said police negotiators made contact with Lindsey several times and urged the man to give himself up. They last spoke with Lindsey between 8:30 and 9 p.m., and officers rushed into the apartment soon after, Mina said.

Lindsey is the father of two of the children, while the other two are children of the woman he assaulted before the standoff began, according to police.

Lindsey was on felony probation after pleading no contest to charges of arson of a dwelling, willful fleeing or eluding law enforcement and domestic battery.

In a 2008 incident in Volusia County. a woman with whom Lindsey was in a relationship told police that, during an argument, Lindsey had grabbed a kitchen knife and begun stabbing the living room television, Orlando Sentinel reported.

He also punched the TV screen with his fist, and destroyed another television in the home, according to the Sentinel.

When the woman tried to call police for help, Lindsey broke her phone and threatened to burn the house down.

As the woman left, she spotted Lindsey retrieving two gasoline cans, the Sentineladded. Firefighters arrived at the scene to find house ablaze in that incident.

 

[Club Sandwich]

Most of the time you see this story, someone "legally" bought a gun at a gun store with absolutely no problem despite their convictions/institutionalizations/whatever condition supposedly precludes you from buying guns.

nein.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

guns in crime are nearly always illegally obtained, however the few legal guns that end up in criminals hands are overwhelming in three categories:

1. a straw purchase - where someone is purchasing the gun on behalf of a prohibited person
2. a failure of the seller to perform due diligence; the purposeful misrepresentation of themselves to a seller (mostly with private sales since non-dealers cannot access the background check system and have to rely on their own judgement for the sale to proceed).
3. purchased prior to the events that would make someone prohibited (before any convictions or arrests, et c).

you can't be denied a gun sale by statute without being a prohibited person and traffic violations rarely fall into that category. in individual states, there are additions/extensions to the list of offenses that can make you prohibited, but those also generally don't include traffic violations. i think some states can do so with an unpaid traffic fine that would otherwise result in a bench warrant because the subject of the warrant is considered a fugitive from justice which is a prohibited person by statute.

however most states have slightly different definitions of how they do their traffic violations.

 

[Shugo]

nein.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

guns in crime are nearly always illegally obtained, however the few legal guns that end up in criminals hands are overwhelming in three categories:

1. a straw purchase - where someone is purchasing the gun on behalf of a prohibited person
2. a failure of the seller to perform due diligence; the purposeful misrepresentation of themselves to a seller (mostly with private sales since non-dealers cannot access the background check system and have to rely on their own judgement for the sale to proceed).
3. purchased prior to the events that would make someone prohibited (before any convictions or arrests, et c).

you can't be denied a gun sale by statute without being a prohibited person and traffic violations rarely fall into that category. in individual states, there are additions/extensions to the list of offenses that can make you prohibited, but those also generally don't include traffic violations. i think some states can do so with an unpaid traffic fine that would otherwise result in a bench warrant because the subject of the warrant is considered a fugitive from justice which is a prohibited person by statute.

however most states have slightly different definitions of how they do their traffic violations.

That's assuming NICS and all police records are perfect and no one is falsely denied by a NICS check, which is not the case.

The appeal process to get out of being flagged by NICS is lengthy and they don't really have a timeframe they have to respond to your appeal. You get wrongly denied the ability to buy a gun from a gun store? Oh well.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/06/la...llful-failure-to-process-nics-denial-appeals/

Just recently people have had to sue the FBI because they simply deny people the right to purchase a firearm and don't care enough to tell them the reason why. We need to do away with a system that puts the burden of proof on the person attempting to buy a gun prove their innocence, without telling them what they have been found guilty of in the past.

NICS needs an overhaul or simply to be done away with.

 

[Club Sandwich]

stuff that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

NICS is like any other system in that it can only do good work when given good information - that isn't a failure of the system, that's a failure of people.

 

[Shugo]

NICS is like any other system in that it can only do good work when given good information - that isn't a failure of the system, that's a failure of people.

A system which allowed several mass-murderers to buy guns, and has (since 2016) no appeal process when it wrongly denies countless people the right to buy a gun is a failure, and it's fairly relevant to the topic when the system to deny felons the right to buy firearms failed once again and another felon killed 4 more people because of it.

Why is there a system to deny people the right to buy firearms, and zero way to appeal a wrongful denial of their right? That is a complete failure of the system and a complete infringement of millions of American's second amendment rights.

Maybe we should go about keeping guns out of the hands of murderous people another way than a bureaucratic mess that wrongfully denies people the right to buy firearms, but gun control advocates say we must expand such a system "universally."

In your previous post you quote the DOJ study, which shows the overwhelmingly majority of firearms don't go through a NICS, or if they do they're through a straw purchase which evades the system entirely. Why should we keep this system that could deny you for an unpaid traffic ticket that eventually turns you into a 'fugitive of justice' since you moved state, when the system is evaded by over 80% of criminals, and apparently by plenty of criminals as I hear about felons with guns every other week in the news.

 

[RodgerDodger]

This is terrible. I like my Florida man batshit insane, but ultimately harmless.

Florida Man is best when he only harms himself or otherwise removes himself and only himself from the gene pool.

 

[Club Sandwich]

A system which allowed several mass-murderers to buy guns, and has (since 2016) no appeal process when it wrongly denies countless people the right to buy a gun is a failure, and it's fairly relevant to the topic when the system to deny felons the right to buy firearms failed once again and another felon killed 4 more people because of it.

Why is there a system to deny people the right to buy firearms, and zero way to appeal a wrongful denial of their right? That is a complete failure of the system and a complete infringement of millions of American's second amendment rights.

Maybe we should go about keeping guns out of the hands of murderous people another way than a bureaucratic mess that wrongfully denies people the right to buy firearms, but gun control advocates say we must expand such a system "universally."

In your previous post you quote the DOJ study, which shows the overwhelmingly majority of firearms don't go through a NICS, or if they do they're through a straw purchase which evades the system entirely. Why should we keep this system that could deny you for an unpaid traffic ticket that eventually turns you into a 'fugitive of justice' since you moved state, when the system is evaded by over 80% of criminals?

1. mass murders can buy guns like anyone else if they aren't prohibited persons according to NICS. NICS is not infallible - if there is nothing in NICS that would deny someone their sale, the sale is allowed - NICS requires reports to be submitted by cooperating authorities regarding actionable offenses like felony convictions or restraining orders. it is voluntary and not all agencies participate for various reasons; usually because it's a lot of paperwork and many agencies are understaffed.

2. the NICS appeal process has existed since its inception in 1996 (in paper form where you lodged a petition to appeal), and in 1998 for the online version. in the 1993 mandate had an appeals process that copied the NRC system for denials because it wouldn't have gotten several signatories otherwise. look at section 103(f) and (g). https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025/text

3. it is irrelevant to the topic at hand for the same reason that complaining about how murder is illegal yet still happens is irrelevant: there is a system of laws, procedures, policies, and technologies in place to help prevent this sort of thing, and it is only as reliable as the information that is fed into it. the overwhelming number of people that use weapons in crimes either would never have been denied to begin with (since they aren't prohibited at the point of sale) or obtain their arms through illegal means.

the man in question obtained a firearm somehow, and it's not clear how he did - obtaining one from a dealer because there was no denial is certainly a possibility. if there was no denial for a felon, then NICS failed. if NICS failed, it is generally because agencies did not provide NICS with information sufficient to deny the sale; ergo the buyer gets his gun because he (as far as the system is concerned) has that right to obtain and bear arms.

so what is your argument? NICS works as intended and bad information - if the guy bought a gun from a dealer who did a NICS lookup - allowed the wrong guy to buy a gun. if you're arguing that NICS, which relies on convictions and has a codified list of reasons to deny someone, should be discarded, the alternative is competing systems in multiple jurisdications that would be more expensive, less cohesive, and arguably worse for gun rights and public safety (denied in Reno, buy in Boise). if you're arguing that we start arbitrarily denying sales based on information that isn't a conviction or court order, that's a separate issue entirely with it's own horrible flaws.

 

[Red Hood]

Should edit the title so everybody knows it’s a “Florida man” thread

There should be a Florida Man category tag

 

[Shugo]

2. the NICS appeal process has existed since its inception in 1996 (in paper form where you lodged a petition to appeal), and in 1998 for the online version. in the 1993 mandate had an appeals process that copied the NRC system for denials because it wouldn't have gotten several signatories otherwise. look at section 103(f) and (g).

And in 2016 they just "reassigned" everyone responsible for processing appeals to other duties.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/19/fbi-guns-background-checks/78752774/

if you're arguing that NICS, which relies on convictions and has a codified list of reasons to deny someone, should be discarded, the alternative is competing systems in multiple jurisdications that would be more expensive, less cohesive, and arguably worse for gun rights

I'm arguing that a system which denies your right to buy a gun without even telling you what you have done in the past is a gross infringement on your rights. There needs to be an overhaul or removal of the system.

It is not an "instant" background check system if thousands of people are denied their right to buy a gun and it's only overturned months later after appealing to the FBI. It's not a functional system when they reassigned every person responsible for processing appeals.

In 2014, 5% of people who were denied a gun sale due to NICS were overturned. I wonder how many were wrongly denied the right to buy a gun in 2016, one of the biggest years for gun sales? Who knows, because in 2016 they didn't process appeals anymore. How were over 4,000 people wrongfully denied the right if it relies on "relies on convictions and has a codified list of reasons to deny someone?" Could it be there's a huge issue with this system, which are not addressed when they refuse to process appeals?

NICS is a garbage system, it didn't prevent the freak in the OP from getting a gun, it didn't prevent Dylann Roof from getting a gun, we need less gross infringements on our rights when we're told it's to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and when guns are still ending up in the hands of dangerous individuals, they claim we need more gun control laws in addition to NICS. Gun control does not have an ending, and NICS is unconstitutional due to its presumption of guilt without real proof, and the necessity for thousands of people a year denied that right and need to prove their innocence to buy a gun.

Is a 5% rate of falsely denying people the right to buy a gun acceptable? Only 4,000 people who were wrongly told they had committed a crime and can't buy a gun is an acceptable sacrifice to keep guns out the hands of undesirables, or should we have laws and systems that protect their rights from being infringed?

It's not acceptable that even 1 person is wrongly denied by NICS, and the fact that thousands are a year are proof the system is corrupted, either intentionally or through negligence.

 

[Club Sandwich]

And in 2016 they just "reassigned" everyone responsible for processing appeals to other duties.

your own articles says they are understaffed in multiple areas and want to increase the number of examiners for the NTC. it even has congressional backing - arguably because when the FBI says "we need more manpower to conduct background checks", there's really no one to argue against it.

I'm arguing that a system which denies your right to buy a gun without even telling you what you have done in the past is a gross infringement on your rights.

stop.

NICS can return a delay or deny based on the information it has - which is information that has been submitted to them. there is an appeals process. they do tell you why if you undergo the appeals process. they do not tell the dealer or anyone else because it isn't their concern why you were delayed or denied.

if there's no reply, the sale can proceed at the discretion of the seller, although most dealers will opt to not proceed. people are still getting their appeals filed and investigated; it's merely extremely slow right now - slower than it should be, granted - but it isn't halted, especially after people started filing lawsuits.

It is not an "instant" background check system if thousands of people are denied their right to buy a gun and it's only overturned months later after appealing to the FBI. It's not a functional system when they reassigned every person responsible for processing appeals.

it is an "instant" system in that it takes minutes to return a response when a dealer submits a request for query. the appeals portion has never been advertised as instant. it's perfectly functional for its intended purpose if it is fed good information by reporting agencies, and more agencies report into the system. less false positives, more effective screening.

your argument that the appeals process is lengthy or renders it nonfunctional is nonsensical because an appeal must go through the process to counter the claim within NICS - a claim that you have a felony conviction, a DV conviction, that you have a DD or been adjudicated as mentally unfit - all things that are done through the court system and presumably you are privy to, is a time consuming process.

for genuine cases of mistaken identity, like stolen SSN, or an ID that has a felony warrant out, they will also delay or deny as a measure of caution, and you still have your appeals process to go through; which you get your gun after showing that it was mistakenly applied.

Who knows, because in 2016 they didn't process appeals anymore.

the FBI has always conducted appeals. there has not be any halts to the process other than having a lengthy time to process them due to manpower shortages, where they instead prioritized staff at the NTC, who are familiar with the system and paperwork, to instead continue to process NICS queries.

so which is more valuable when you have limited manpower? processing the incoming deluge of queries or halting/curtailing queries to process the backlog of denials? they made a call and have processed through the "lump", and have evened things out.

it didn't prevent the freak in the OP from getting a gun, it didn't prevent Dylann Roof from getting a gun,

how OP obtained his firearm is as of yet unknown, whether a systemic failure, or a people failure. so that's a garbage reason right off the bat.

Dylann Roof had no prior criminal record according to NICS because human error didn't reporting prohibitive behavior. NICS is neither infallible or touted to be infallible. it is reliant on good information being reported into the system in order to function. i really don't think you understand this requirement.

there is no constitutional issue with NICS itself unless you take the 2nd Amendment literally, which current jurisprudence doesn't support the interpretation that reasonable regulation is verboten.

NICS is a human created system that relies on information from reporting agencies to make determinations via a codified process where convictions and court orders - ones that you can contest and are made aware of - are defined and limited. likewise there is an appeals process and reasonable measures taken to counteract mistakes in a short period of time. as it's currently quite overwhelmed, without any additional resources, your choices are to slow the NICS query return, which is legislatively mandated to occur within 3 days following a delay or no response, or slow the appeals process for people that might have good reason to be denied.

a deny typically means that NICS has information that would cause it to respond with a deny - in benign circumstances it's a felony conviction, domestic violence, or outstanding warrant - something where you wouldn't want that person to have a firearm in an abundance of caution. sometimes people are unaware of this, or have forgotten or are genuinely caught out as trying to buy anyway. this is not the fault of NICS.

the appeals process is someone filling out a form and telling the FBI that their NICS information is wrong - the NTC sends a letter (or calls you) with the exact reason as well as their evidence for it, usually a case number or something. it's on you to say why it's incorrect. most NICS denies that are appealed are due to mistaken identity (stolen SSN, same name as a warrant that was issued in that reporting jurisdiction, an unresolved juvenile conviction that was entered improperly, et c). this is not a fault of NICS.

human failures in the system does not invalidate the entire thing; and as there is currently no better system that has been developed, it is what is available to fulfill the legislative mandate to curb the acquisition of arms by persons who should not be armed. this is not a fault of NICS.

i welcome you to petition Congress for a better system, or to gather the needed votes to amend the Constitution to better outlaw the situation you clearly are strongly opposed to. so far, more stringent checks haven't passed muster as you can't force people to report when they don't want to or can't get involved (Gifford's shooter had this problem as did many school shooters where agencies and counselors and parents and teachers and other students failed to report worrying behavior for investigation).

 

[Slap47]

Suicidal people tend to be self-centered assholes.

Obviously not all of them but there is a reason why so many choose to kill themselves in a way that involves letting go of the wheel, burning something down full of people or shooting innocent people.

Shame this woman didn't leave with the kids. Lost a niece for the same reason.

 

[Shugo]

the appeals process is someone filling out a form and telling the FBI that their NICS information is wrong

And you don't see any issue with people being denied the right to buy a gun for months on end, or years, even after they fill out a form saying "I haven't committed a crime, why the hell are you saying I have?" and when FOIA requests to the FBI have confirmed that they're not even looking at these appeals since actually 2015, there's no issue with the system?

http://www.sdslaw.us/single-post/20...General-USA-and-the-FBI-for-more-NICS-denials

This lawsuit also details how another person appealed their NICS deny on April, 2017, and still is waiting to hear back from the FBI. How many months or years of being denied the right to buy a gun does it take until your 2nd amendment right is infringed? What's the point of an appeal process to regain the right to buy a gun when the appeal is ignored for over a year? How is it acceptable to deny someone the right to buy a gun for over a year because the FBI is too understaffed to look into one person's background, which they claimed was prohibiting him from owning a gun?

your argument that the appeals process is lengthy or renders it nonfunctional is nonsensical because an appeal must go through the process to counter the claim within NICS - a claim that you have a felony conviction, a DV conviction, that you have a DD or been adjudicated as mentally unfit - all things that are done through the court system and presumably you are privy to, is a time consuming process.

So how long is reasonable? It's reasonable to keep someone from buying a gun for over a year while the FBI determines if they actually have a background check? Is 2 years an acceptable waiting period? 5 years? When does it become an infringement?

Either amend the law to require the FBI to respond to appeals within a small timeframe, or scrap the entire law altogether.

No gun control is acceptable, I do disagree with the current legal precedence. Why wasn't the 1934 NFA enough to stop gun crime? Why wasn't the 1968 law? Why isn't the NICS keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals? When will we finally have the Final Solution to the gun problem? We never will, but we'll always have more reasons to pass more gun control. Gun control as a whole is a failure, and will continue to be a failure at everything but keeping guns out of the hands of people who should have them and legally have every right to own them.

Every single crime committed with a gun will be used as evidence that we need more gun control, and is a testament that the thousands of gun control laws in the past do not stop people from buying, trading, or manufacturing their own guns for nefarious purposes.

there is no constitutional issue with NICS itself unless you take the 2nd Amendment literally,

Of course I take the Second Amendment literally, do you think the Bill of Rights is meant figuratively?

 

[AnOminous]

nein.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

guns in crime are nearly always illegally obtained, however the few legal guns that end up in criminals hands are overwhelming in three categories:

I’m not talking about plain old normal crime. I’m talking about mass shootings, like Dylann Roof (prohibited from ownership but bought in a gun shop anyway), Stephen Paddock, the Vegas shooter (all legally purchased), Seung-Hui Cho (legally purchased despite mental illness), Adam Lanza (legally purchased guns in household), Nikolas Cruz (legally purchased), Chris Harper-Mercer (legally purchased).

In fact, I’m at a loss to name a single school shooter who used straw purchasers or any of this bullshit that normal criminals use.

 

[Shugo]

like Dylann Roof (prohibited from ownership but bought in a gun shop anyway), Seung-Hui Cho (legally purchased despite mental illness), Adam Lanza (legally purchased guns in household), Nikolas Cruz (legally purchased)

In fact, I’m at a loss to name a single school shooter who used straw purchasers or any of this bullshit that normal criminals use.

James Holmes, a few weeks before purchasing a gun and shooting up the movie theater, sent text messages to his school psychiatrist saying he was going to kill her. Despite the person who was in charge of mental health telling police that her life was threatened by a mentally unstable person, the police said "meh, we'll do something once he actually hurts someone" and refused to follow up on a death threat, electronically saved and provable, to a psychiatrist.

But nah, it's not the police's fault, it's the ammo sellers who let him order ammo to his home, which is who the families of some of the victims sued.

Nikolas Cruz also had police called to his house around 40 times in the last few years, one of the calls for "pointing a firearm at a relative" but the police failed to enforce the law and protect the people around him from this violent, dangerous individual who owned a gun and threatened his family regularly so that they had to call the police 40 times. Let's also not forget how the SRO at the school first said he was "ordered" to stay outside while the shooting was happening, and now 3 months later he's saying he believed it was sniper fire coming from outside of the school, which is why he didn't go in.

All of these are used as an excuse as to why we need more gun control, NICS wasn't enough, it's never enough.

Aaron Alexis, who shot up the Navy Yard in DC had violent encounters in the past where police intervened. Once he "accidentally" fired an AR-15 into his ceiling where his neighbor was living, on the same day after they had an argument outside. He said he "accidentally" shot into the ceiling when he was cleaning his gun and his hands were slippery, because he was cooking too.

On another occasion, Aaron Alexis fired a gun into a person's car tire in a fit of rage, but police failed to charge him with anything because he was just a good boy who got a little mad and got a little out of control, not like we need to charge someone with shooting at another person in a fit of rage.

Omar Mateen, while in police academy school, threatened to bring a gun to class, and was later dismissed from the class because of his "joke" of bringing a gun to police class to kill people.

The FBI interviewed Mateen after this and decided this Muslim threatening mass murder didn't actually mean it and didn't charge him with terroristic threats, thankfully. He got to prove his terroristic intents when he went into the Pulse Night Club later.

In fact, I’m at a loss to name a single school shooter who used straw purchasers

Come on now, how could you forget Dylan and Eric? They had 2 separate people straw purchase firearms for them, but only 1 got prison time. He had a man and a woman straw-purchase guns for him. Guess which one was elevated by male privilege and got to spend time in jail?

 

[Noose]

I’m not talking about plain old normal crime. I’m talking about mass shootings, like Dylann Roof (prohibited from ownership but bought in a gun shop anyway), Stephen Paddock, the Vegas shooter (all legally purchased), Seung-Hui Cho (legally purchased despite mental illness), Adam Lanza (legally purchased guns in household), Nikolas Cruz (legally purchased), Chris Harper-Mercer (legally purchased).

In fact, I’m at a loss to name a single school shooter who used straw purchasers or any of this bullshit that normal criminals use.

Didn't Adam kill his mom then grab her guns?
Also, there was nothing Cho did that caused much suspicion, plus I think he would've just collected all of his money and bought a gun from the black market because hey, you're gonna die anyways so why's your money gonna matter?

 

[Shugo]

Also, there was nothing Cho did that caused much suspicion, plus I think he would've just collected all of his money and bought a gun from the black market because hey, you're gonna die anyways so why's your money gonna matter?

Except he was involuntarily committed to a hospital for threats of suicide. This should have barred him from buying a firearm at least for several years, except someone apparently didn't enter the right info into NICS. Oops! It's the best we have, and even if you're denied the right to buy a gun for over a year with your appeal being ignored, we should keep it.

 

[Club Sandwich]

I’m not talking about plain old normal crime. I’m talking about mass shootings

Dylann Roof (prohibited from ownership but bought in a gun shop anyway) - NICS did not flag him due to a failure to report. NICS is not psychic.
Stephen Paddock, the Vegas shooter (all legally purchased) - he had nothing that would cause him to be prohibited as he wasn't a convicted felon, a fugitive from justice, et c. NICS is not in the psychic.
Seung-Hui Cho (legally purchased despite mental illness) - a Baker Act psychiatric evaluation following a court order would need to be specifically entered by the reporting agency. additional failures by people to report on the disturbing/offensive behavior is not a fault of NICS. NICS is not psychic.
Adam Lanza (legally purchased guns in household) - he killed his parent who had legally purchased them, and stole them from the legal owner. he did not go through NICS at all.
Nikolas Cruz (legally purchased) - failure to report to authorities why he was kicked out, ordered to not come on campus, et c. NICS is not psychic.
Chris Harper-Mercer (legally purchased) - none were stolen from his parent, but rather he had acquired them with NICS approval because NICS is not psychic.

In fact, I’m at a loss to name a single school shooter who used straw purchasers or any of this bullshit that normal criminals use.

other than Columbine which involved straw purchases; my point stands that they were either legally purchased by persons that had no reason for denial, or were stolen from others that had already legally bought them. in fact in the document i link you'll find that many convicted felons get firearms from family members or lovers.

my point with everything that i've posted here, is that we are not in the business of thoughtcrime - NICS has no way of magically knowing to prevent someone from purchasing a gun if there is no information submitted to NICS for that issue.

likewise for all its faults, NICS is indeed the best we have right now as the alternatives are either extremely intrusive, extremely lax, extremely expensive, or extremely inefficient. if someone has a suggestion for a better system, then they better lay it out and write to Congress to get it started.

crazy people killing others is abhorrent, but so is saying NICS should be abolished because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED or that all gun sales should be halted to everyone because someone might potentially commit a crime with one. there is a median between those two extremes, and regulated background checks mandated by law with an appeals process and a reporting tool is what we have. enforcement and compliance is needed.

holy shit i'm done talking about this. it's either arguing with stone walls or muh feelz or muh rights. victims of horrible crimes are not talking points - they are an impetuous to hard work to resolve the gaps in the system, identify them, and close them while doing absolutely everything possible to preserve the rights of the public.

 

[Shugo]

crazy people killing others is abhorrent, but so is saying NICS should be abolished because SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Sure, you think it's abhorrent that we should continue to have a system called an "instant" system that denies people their right to buy a gun for up to a year or more until they have to sue the FBI for their right, I think it's abhorrent we have to put up with such a system in the name of "saving lives" when the vast majority of felons and others prohibited from owning firearms simply avoid it and it's shown time and time again it's not stopping the people it claims to stop from getting guns, and when they fail, our Presidents and members of Congress use the failures to argue for more gun control.

We were told we have to stop people from mail-ordering guns to their house so they wouldn't be able to assassinate Kennedy, which is when we got the FFL system. But more people got killed, until we got the Brady Bill that eventually turned into NICS, and don't worry, it's still not enough according to Congress. There will never be an end to more gun control and the continuation of these failed gun control laws in the past only legitimizes more in the future. There is no evidence that these "gun control" laws have any effect on crime, as the US and most other western countries generally share the same spikes and dips in violent crime, including homicide, regardless of what gun control laws we pass or they pass.

Here's how the US and Canada's homicide rates compared, note how after 1994 they both rapidly started dropping despite Canada not implementing a background check system at the exact same time we did, yet their homicides started dropping by the same percentage. Also note how how homicides spiked and continued to spike in the 1960s and didn't really drop until the 90s, despite the FFL system being put into place in the late 1960s.

All gun control is a failure, OP's post is proof and there's countless more proof.

 

[Billy_Sama]

I am not liking this darker turn in my Florida Man series.

 

[Noose]

Except he was involuntarily committed to a hospital for threats of suicide. This should have barred him from buying a firearm at least for several years, except someone apparently didn't enter the right info into NICS. Oops! It's the best we have, and even if you're denied the right to buy a gun for over a year with your appeal being ignored, we should keep it.

Oh okay.

He was still a crazy ass motherfucker though.

He killed well for using dual glock pistols