Posted on 05/25/2014 6:16:08 AM PDT by BobL
I've been trying to think of all the post-Sandy Hook gun control legislation that has been proposed (some of it passed), and I can't think of a single piece of legislation that would have stopped him. The only thing that I can come up with is a complete ban on handguns. What would not have helped:
1) Expanded background checks - he legally bought the guns - gun show, private buyer, no difference - they checked on him.
2) Gun Registration - all handguns are registered in California, and I assume his too, as he legally owned them
3) Smaller Magazines - I don't have enough details, but likely not
4) Smart Guns - They were his legal guns and he would have been the authorized mass killer
5) Preventing nuts from owning guns - Nope, he had enough sense not to get mixed up in the "mental health" system.
6) Waiting period - California already has something like 2 weeks before you take ownership of the gun you just bought.
7) Assault Weapons - Sorry, not used
Bottom line, no matter what they say, their end game has to be to take our guns (and we always knew that).
Elliot Rodgers’ Youtube threats [& “manifesto”], which reportedly included threats to murder specific family members as well as others, should have been sufficient to institutionalize or prosecute him.
In most (if not all) jurisdictions, making “terroristic threats” is a crime. Threatening to commit multiple murders, including threats against specific individuals, would certainly qualify as a “terroristic threat”.
I.E. A quick Google turned up felony prosecutions for things such as making death threats via twitter. [E.G. Harrison William Rund of St. Paul, Minnesota.]
If one can be charged with a felony for making a death threats via twitter, one could certainly be prosecuted for making death threats via Youtube.
Authorities had ample warning and opportunity to intervene in this case. Instead, they chose to do nothing.
I don’t want to give crazy people ideas, but there’s absolutely nothing stopping a crazy person from killing people in a variety of ways. This guy first killed three people with a knife. There’s been instances of people murdering large numbers of people with knives in various places around the world. The key is to find crazy people first, and limit their actions.
Anything can be a weapon. Pencils, hammers, brass knuckles, pocket knife, pen, glass. If a nut like this wants to hurt people, he’ll hurt them. The topic now on CNNABCCBSMSNBC is…gun control. “This never would have happened if…” “There seems to be a pattern with white males”. “This was a hate crime…”, “I understand he was a right winger”...
But one of the defining hallmarks of liberal is not ever learning from your mistakes. You can't learn if your attitude is "We just didn't go far enough." Rather than admit when they're wrong liberals always double down on stupidity. If they could learn they wouldn't BE liberals.
The OP is about the most recent killing spree in CA at UCSD, I think. Your comment has to do with Sandy Hook, CT. You guys are having an exchange like two ships passing in the night.
This kid, from reading just a few short minutes about him, would have found another way to kill the people he was after — a bomb of some kind, or perhaps a good old fashioned strangling, or maybe just running over multiple people with the BMW.
THIS KID would have found a way.
The liberal agenda has become all the more crystal clear to me now. They just simply REFUSE to allow anyone to bear responsibility for their actions — whether it be if they kill someone, or whether they have a baby out of wedlock, steal, show up late for work, or any irresponsible action.
There is to be NO ACCOUNTING FOR ANY ACTION. There is to be no judgment. Blame will always be placed on some other object, person, system, or institution. Never blame on the actual PERPETRATOR of the action. To do so is to admit that the person is not perfect, has faults, is wrong, or has a misguided value system, or is WEAK.
It’s all about self worship with these people. Just crystal clear now.
Parents, in the home, teaching their children morals and values would help more than anything.
Yeah....I figured it out. Would have been nice if he would have prefaced his post with a mention of UCSB.
The killer was actually already living in a sheltered apartment for the mentally ill - the first three victims (whom he stabbed to death) were his roommates. He was under the supervision of therapists, and in fact the therapists and his parents asked the police to check on him and the police decided he was ok.
First of all, why is that decision up to the police? Don’t the “therapists” do anything to earn their salaries?
Secondly, it says he bought the guns legally. Did he buy them before he was diagnosed with his illness? Or did he buy them while already living in a mental health facility, because mental illness advocates (mostly the same as the “homeless” advocates) have prevented such things from being recorded in any way, and thus the gun dealer wouldn’t have found anything when he checked?
The problem is mental illness and the way we deal with it. The “advocates” haven’t gotten them any better care, they’ve just covered up the problem - in between eruptions. All of the recent mass killers have been mentally ill and even under “treatment” at the time of their rampages.
I read that 3 of the victims were found stabbed to death in his apartment Haven’t heard anything more about that.
Doesn’t fit today’s narrative and incessant anti-gun drumbeat, can’t have people knowing the fact that those with a plan to kill will get it done with whatever implement is at hand.
The Thread on which I posted began with:
I've been trying to think of all the post-Sandy Hook ...
and I believe was describing the Santa Barbara shooter.
Which is irrelevant. Once Rodgers began making multiple death threats, AND posted them to youtube, he committed a crime, and should have been placed in custody, pending further action.
I.E. California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats) as, quote:
A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and
1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and
3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device
End quote.
Examples include: "Texting your ex that you're going to set fire to her apartment."
If "texting" a threat is a crime, so is posting death threats to Youtube.
First of all, why is that decision up to the police? Don’t the “therapists” do anything to earn their salaries?
Perhaps because police, as part of the criminal justice system, are charged with enforcing the law, while "therapists" aren't.
Secondly, it says he bought the guns legally. Did he buy them before he was diagnosed with his illness? Or did he buy them while already living in a mental health facility, because mental illness advocates (mostly the same as the “homeless” advocates) have prevented such things from being recorded in any way, and thus the gun dealer wouldn’t have found anything when he checked?
The ATF form 4473, which one fills out when purchasing a firearm, asks if one has been "adjudicated" mentally ill. That is an important distinction, as "adjudication" requires due process. Since the criminal justice system turned a blind eye to his repeated threats and other actions, and would neither prosecute him or have him adjudicated mentally ill, it is no wonder that he wasn't in the the NICS system, as a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm. (Again, it's all about due process.)
The answer is easy.
This crime was not caused by guns.
It was caused by parents who failed to recognize that they had a very sick kid, but who now dodge their responsibility by blaming guns.
Whether they failed due to incompetence or due to a lack of will is not known, but they failed.
Post #29....
Posted the above before i read all of the comments, so I retract part of it.
Parents tried, cops blew it.
Old story. Cops are for “post crime action.”
Nothing takes the place of your ability to protect yourself.
I completely agree that he should have been in custody. The death threats should certainly have been enough to do it.
But my point is that the mentally ill have been somehow misguidedly “protected” by the left to such an extent that they are even exempted from normal laws. You may not be old enough to remember this, but in the 1970s, there was a popular leftist theory that mental illness was caused by capitalism, and thus the mentally ill were the only “truly sane.” And this theory persists in dealing with the problem.
There should have been some public record of the fact that this guy was so damaged that he needed to be under supervision (fat lot of good it did, though), because the gun dealer had nothing to go on when he checked the records.
The police are very reluctant to make these decisions, and it really shouldn’t be their decision...although virtually all the people I have known who have been committed to care (I worked in the field, it’s not that my friends happen to have a high propensity for mental illness) have ended up there only through police intervention, usually before they killed somebody else but sometimes not before they themselves had been injured trying to kill somebody else.
And there are many police who have had to go through horrible trials for killing some innocent old granny - who had just tried to kill her grandson with a knife and lunged at the officers who told her to drop it, even though it was about their 20th call to the home to keep granny from killing somebody and the “mental health profession” still thought she was going to be just fine at home.
We had one of these in my town who shot to death her nephew (a very good Christian), the only person in the family who volunteered to care for her after daily threats and even considerable violence on her part over decades. She was in her 90s at that point but had been crazy and showing it since her late 40s. The family was poor and she relied on county mental health services, but even wealthy families can’t handle people like this.
She had been expelled from regular facilities for the elderly because of violence. This still did not qualify her for custody, evidently, and even after she had killed this good man and was in jail, they wanted to refer her to a regular medical residence for the elderly. None of them would accept her, of course, so they finally had to put her in a special ward of prison for the criminal mentally ill.
But why did the situation have to get to this point?
People are rightfully frightened of the idea of a national mental health care system of insane asylums. However, the states are unwilling, and currently, legally unable to have effective mental health care either.
So it seems like the best bet would be for states to form compacts for multi-state mental hospitals, which could help several current problems, with states paying a fixed amount for the number of enrollees from their state.
Such mental hospitals would be subdivided into several sections. The high-security section would be for the criminally insane who represent a threat to others. Part of this would be those who also represent a suicide threat to themselves.
The medium security section would be for those who are currently a threat, but not criminal, who are treatable under supervision. This section also has a biological hazard part for those with dangerous communicable diseases like Tuberculosis, and cannot be trusted to self medicate.
The minimum security section would be for those who are not treatable, but who cannot function on their own or in a non-medical situation, like those with advanced dementia or persistent coma. A part of this are for those who are regarded as trustees, who can help with simple chores and live in “group home” settings to help each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.