So let me get this straight.......
The initial narrative was “another campus mass shooting!”
Reality, it was a domestic dispute that happened on a campus. No resemblance to NIU or VaTech.
The other narrative, “We must have more gun control!”
Per the shooters brother. The shooters Dad was a police officer. The kid went out to his parents car to put some stuff in it. The father had left his service revolver in the car. He used his dad’s gun to kill his parents. Not sure how gun control or the NRA’s existence changes that.
But for two days we got the desired narrative, then the truth, and on to the next crisis of the moment.
This is why it's important to wait until the details emerge before jumping to conclusions that just fit your narrative.
(03-05-2018 03:19 PM)broncofan1 Wrote: [ -> ]This is why it's important to wait until the details emerge before jumping to conclusions that just fit your narrative.
That's why it dropped out of the national coverage. Didn't fit the narrative.
You conservatives are just trying to skew everything with the actual facts. That is so pathetic. Dont you know that guns, the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and free enterprise are all horrible? Shame on you people!
When I look at the "alt-right" and its crass intolerance for difference of opinion, then look at the "alt-left" and see the same thing, it scares the heck out of me and makes me glad to be the owner of several firearms.
Neither of the political extremes that are taking over the two main political parties value the first amendment, second amendment or fifth amendment. They want complete and total, lockstep, control. No freedom of speech/religion unless they agree with it, no personal possession of firearms (see how that worked for the Jews in Germany in the 1930's) and absolutely no due process.
Totalitarian government is the objective for both extremes. Scary stuff. It can happen here.
A friend of mine who is Jewish, and lives in Brighton, purchased an AK-47 back in the early 90's. He showed it to me and I told him while I support his right to own it, why the heck would he want too?
He said, "If you were a Jew and lived this close to Howell, you would too."
Wasn't gonna argue with that. Changed the subject to golf clubs....
I'm not so much in favor of gun control, but strongly support control of guns. Meaning that the "responsible" gun owners who do not properly protect them and allow access to them, should be held criminally liable. The CMU shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting and many others are the direct result of the gun owner not controlling their weapon. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car, and not locked in the glove compartment is dumb. Not using an in-home gun safe is irresponsible.
(03-05-2018 04:29 PM)ChipfanII Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not so much in favor of gun control, but strongly support control of guns. Meaning that the "responsible" gun owners who do not properly protect them and allow access to them, should be held criminally liable. The CMU shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting and many others are the direct result of the gun owner not controlling their weapon. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car, and not locked in the glove compartment is dumb. Not using an in-home gun safe is irresponsible.
It was a cop’s gun, locked in his car. Access? He’s a cop, what do you want to do, take guns away from the cops too? Don’t conflate your domestic dispute using a cops gun to Sandyhook.
I hesitate to say anything, but....
I never saw an initial narrative that this was a "mass shooting" or "another campus mass shooting". I read several articles when it happened and not once did I see that angle taken.
Also never really saw the narrative that we "need more gun control" associated with this story. (except from the board nit wit).
I think you are making something out of nothing, or at the very least twisting the actual response into something that you can argue with. Seems like that is happening a lot with the issue of guns lately. From both sides. I'm kind of tired of that and would prefer people just stick with facts.
Campus “student” shooting was all over twitter before they even knew the victims weren’t students.
The gun control NRA debate was all over twitter, and the Slappies are debating it on their busiest thread on their site.
So yeah, the false narrative was in full gear before ANYTHING was known.
Yeah I know, stating what actually happened is crazy. My apology.
Ahhhh. Twitter.
That makes more sense.
I am not a twitter user. It's too over-reactive for me.
In light of the tragedy I am reticent to comment on the gun issue - but:
Why did Dad bring his service revolver to CMU to pick up Junior from his dorm?
Why did he leave it in their vehicle (instead of having it holstered on him for ex. if he felt the need to carry) where Junior could get it?
If Dad either leaves the weapon at home or secures it while he and Mom are doing their parental duty - this tragedy may not have occurred.
Of course the answers to these questions won't bring Mom and Dad back nor explain the motive(s) behind why Junior took the gun and apparently killed his parents with it.
The point is - if the gun isn't there or Junior can't get at it, then perhaps there aren't two dead parents and a child in jail looking at several years in prison and a lifetime of living with what he (allegedly) did.
(03-05-2018 04:52 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2018 04:29 PM)ChipfanII Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not so much in favor of gun control, but strongly support control of guns. Meaning that the "responsible" gun owners who do not properly protect them and allow access to them, should be held criminally liable. The CMU shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting and many others are the direct result of the gun owner not controlling their weapon. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car, and not locked in the glove compartment is dumb. Not using an in-home gun safe is irresponsible.
It was a cop’s gun, locked in his car. Access? He’s a cop, what do you want to do, take guns away from the cops too? Don’t conflate your domestic dispute using a cops gun to Sandyhook.
Some police officers are required to carry when they off duty. Self protection if criminal reconizes them and if they are called in for emergencies.
As AG Jennifer Grandholm had ruling approving off duty officers carrying in gun free
zones.
(03-05-2018 04:01 PM)brovol Wrote: [ -> ]You conservatives are just trying to skew everything with the actual facts. That is so pathetic. Dont you know that guns, the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and free enterprise are all horrible? Shame on you people!
LOL. Exactly.
(03-05-2018 04:29 PM)ChipfanII Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not so much in favor of gun control, but strongly support control of guns. Meaning that the "responsible" gun owners who do not properly protect them and allow access to them, should be held criminally liable. The CMU shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting and many others are the direct result of the gun owner not controlling their weapon. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car, and not locked in the glove compartment is dumb. Not using an in-home gun safe is irresponsible.
And what do you do if your home is broken into, Einstein? Turn on the light, walk over to the safe, try and find where you wrote down the combination, fumble with the combination a few times until you get it right, take out the pistol, load it and confront your attacker?
A firearm for home protection is not doing you any good locked up in a safe. I keep mine in a safe and accessible-to me-location, where it should be. Anything else is rubbish.
(03-05-2018 09:28 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2018 04:29 PM)ChipfanII Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not so much in favor of gun control, but strongly support control of guns. Meaning that the "responsible" gun owners who do not properly protect them and allow access to them, should be held criminally liable. The CMU shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting and many others are the direct result of the gun owner not controlling their weapon. Leaving a gun in an unlocked car, and not locked in the glove compartment is dumb. Not using an in-home gun safe is irresponsible.
And what do you do if your home is broken into, Einstein? Turn on the light, walk over to the safe, try and find where you wrote down the combination, fumble with the combination a few times until you get it right, take out the pistol, load it and confront your attacker?
A firearm for home protection is not doing you any good locked up in a safe. I keep mine in a safe and accessible-to me-location, where it should be. Anything else is rubbish.
Check your calendar, Phil. It's 2018 and there is technology readily available.
1. The Gunbox
Sleek, modern, and equipped with high-tech features that would make James Bond blush, the Gunbox is at the top of our smart safe list. “Time” magazine called it the “best-looking, most high-tech gun safe you’ll see” and we certainly agree.
With the Premier model, you can open the safe by using either the 360-degree biometric fingerprint scanner or a wristband that pairs with the RFID scanner.
(03-05-2018 05:46 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]In light of the tragedy I am reticent to comment on the gun issue - but:
Why did Dad bring his service revolver to CMU to pick up Junior from his dorm?
Why did he leave it in their vehicle (instead of having it holstered on him for ex. if he felt the need to carry) where Junior could get it?
If Dad either leaves the weapon at home or secures it while he and Mom are doing their parental duty - this tragedy may not have occurred.
Of course the answers to these questions won't bring Mom and Dad back nor explain the motive(s) behind why Junior took the gun and apparently killed his parents with it.
The point is - if the gun isn't there or Junior can't get at it, then perhaps there aren't two dead parents and a child in jail looking at several years in prison and a lifetime of living with what he (allegedly) did.
Because he was a cop in another state, you are probably right that he shouldn't have had the pistol. But the guy likely gets a call at home that his son is having serious issues from drugs, delusions, or both. He and his wife get in their car as quickly as possible and drive straight to Mount Pleasant to do what they can, and get their son. The guy is probably used to carrying his pistol wherever he goes. So, at some point he realizes he is on a college campus, and likely should not be bringing the pistol into the dorms. Responsibly, he leaves it in the car. The kid finds it and the rest is history.
Kind of tough to disparage the guy under those circumstances, but whatever.
Has a motive been determined yet or would this just come under the umbrella of domestic dispute?
When they started talking about this guy's drugs and paranoia, my initial thought went to those "synthetic marijuana" packets they would sell at gas stations and dumpy convenience stories, disguised as 'potpourri' or whatever.
That stuff is brutal - just a concoction of various chemicals sprayed on common weeds in anonymous warehouses in China - and can send your paranoia and flip-out murderous impulses through the roof.
It's probably not that, but I remember reading about those several years ago, and how they can really turn you into a fiend.