Not All Shootings Are Racially Motivated

by Kerry Dougherty

As a long-time opinion writer I have one rule that I try to follow.

I usually wait anywhere from 24 to 48 hours after a crime has been committed to weigh in.

All too often what seems clear moments after the criminal act becomes a little more complicated once the inconvenient facts dribble out.

Anyone else remember how dumb President Barack Obama looked in 2009 when he impulsively weighed in on the Cambridge incident involving a black Harvard professor who was arrested for disorderly conduct after cops responded to a 911 call about someone breaking into his house in the middle of the night?

The president said the cops “acted stupidly.”

They didn’t act stupidly. The details were far more nuanced. Obama said he “regretted” his rush to judgment and smoothed over his knee-jerk faux pas with his now-famous “beer summit.”

There’s a lesson to learn from Obama’s mistake.

So last week, after the Atlanta shootings, I did not join the Greek chorus blaming anti-Asian prejudice for the killings. Frankly, it didn’t seem like a typical racially motivated crime because two of the victims were white. Plus, the suspect was a certifiably weird dude who said he was a sex addict and that the murders had something to do with that.

Where’s the harm in waiting before inflaming racial tensions?

Fact is, eight innocent people were slain and one crazy man is responsible. We’ll eventually learn the whole story. And the perpetrator will get justice, we hope.

Same goes for the shootings in Boulder on Monday.

In the immediate aftermath, when photos of the alleged killer of 10 were posted and the perp appeared to be white, some on the left seemed almost giddy.

That Tweet, sent less than three hours after the shootings by the niece of Vice President Kamala Harris, was later deleted. Unfortunately for her, screenshots live forever.

Then there’s this, from a reporter for Byline News with more than 264,000 followers:

How glib. How cute. How wrong.

By Tuesday afternoon the fools who rushed in to pronounce the alleged killer a white supremacist had whiplash. Seems the suspect is a man with an Arab-sounding name, a Syrian who came to the U.S. as child refugee with his family. He’s a naturalized citizen and, according to news reports, a Trump-hating liberal.

No, I don’t blame all Trump-hating libs for Monday’s mass supermarket killing. I blame the killer.

Nor do I blame his weapon.

Yet the only thing that happens faster than breathless, bad theories about motives are lefties screaming for gun control within seconds of any mass shooting.

They do it every time.

Never mind that criminals don’t obey laws, that most killers use handguns and no one in the media seems able to recognize an “assault” weapon.

Mass shootings are the worst sort of tragedy. They’re a scourge. The victims are often selected at random and their families are left to deal with the horror.

It’s worth remembering that the shooters are not always white and they’re often motivated by fury over a job situation, a broken marriage or they’re just insane and off their meds.

With time, we’ll learn what really happened in Boulder.

If the media doesn’t lose interest now that it seems the suspect doesn’t fit their preferred narrative.

This column is republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed & Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

80 responses to “Not All Shootings Are Racially Motivated”

  1. You are right Jim, it is all about the narrative and the damage to our freedoms that it can cause. Improper narrative? No media interest.

  2. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    It didn’t take Obama long to chirp about the Boulder shootings. “It will take time to root out the disaffection, racism and misogyny that fuels so many of these senseless acts of violence.”

    Of the “disaffection, racism and misogyny” explanations I’d say the “disaffection” is right. Other than that, I don’t see the victims as predominately women or minorities.

    Which makes Obama 1 for 3 with the facts.

    Better than usual for Obama.

  3. Walter Hadlock Avatar
    Walter Hadlock

    You have a good policy to wait for an investigation to at least begin. Yet another angry person with access to guns. The sad thing is he was known to have anger management issues. Yet, without any convictions, he could legally purchase firearms. I’m sure there will be more to come as the investigation proceeds. The “shoot from the hip” people, instant to blame without facts, rightly have egg on their collective faces.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      true. But how many times has this happened and later after all is said and done, it boils down to some wacko who did get the weapons and did kill?

      Is there no solution to this happening again and again and again? Investigations are not fixing it.

      1. There is a solution, or at any rate a partial one: We need to put crazy people in mental institutions, even if they do not want to be there.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Waiting for the dust to settle is a good rule. However, in this time of instant news and opinion and the competition among news media to be among the first to get on the record, that kind of waiting does not often happen. And the public has a short attention span–48 hours later, they are fixated on the next instant news.

  5. Look at the correlation between the down turn in institutionalization of mentally ill people and the up turn in so called ‘mass shootings’. HINT: examine the 1970s. Those two trend lines are interesting.

  6. “Not All Shootings Are Racially Motivated”

    I would venture to say that most shootings, probably even an overwhelming majority of shootings, are not racially motivated.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      The four L’s for murder. Love, lust, loathing or loot.

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    …they DO all seem to be male though…

    Something to consider…

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Something else to consider, and yes I am quite the conservative type, is the issue of the types of weapons (including large magazines and types of ammo) readily available to purchase/assemble by the general public.

      A ’38PP revolver like I used to have for personal protection is quite different from a large magazine ’47 and bump stock types of accessories.

      Also, virtually “instantaneous” waiting periods also make little sense.

      Militias envisioned in A2 also are long gone unless Proud Boys members imagine themselves members of one.

      Go ahead … take your shots.

      1. “Also, virtually “instantaneous” waiting periods also make little sense.”

        They are only “nearly instantaneous” if you pass the background check.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Does the background check – check for people charged but not yet convinced?
          How about restraining orders?

          Does it check all states ?

          1. It’s a national background check so it covers all states.

            As far as charged and not convicted, or restraining orders, you have carped endlessly about that. You know the answer, you just don’t like the fact that people’s rights cannot be preemptively infringed. Frankly, that does not surprise me.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Naw. The “carping” is the false claim that no restrictions can be imposed without “due process”.

            I see this:

            Been convicted of a felony.
            Been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years. This is the primary reason why requests for firearm transfers are denied.
            Been indicted for a crime punishable by more than one year.
            Been a fugitive from justice.
            Been a user of illegal drugs or an addict.
            Been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
            Been an illegal alien.
            Been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
            Renounced U.S. citizenship.
            Been subject to a restraining order for threatening a family member.
            Been convicted of domestic violence.
            Been under an indictment, but not convicted, of a crime carrying a possible year-long prison sentence.

            https://www.thoughtco.com/denied-a-firearm-transfer-reasons-972130

            so every one of these restrictions requires “due process” on an individual basis?

            so what, for instance, is the “due process” for: ” Been under an indictment, but not convicted, of a crime carrying a possible year-long prison sentence.” ?

            How is that adjudicated?

            How is it verified on a 50-state basis in a short time frame that a supposed background check is done?

            Is there an appeal process for individual folks actially denied on this basis?

            My bigger point is that there ARE restrictions that have been put in place over the years and that such restrictions apparently are arbitrary and do not require individual due-process to pass Constitutional muster – so one presumes that by following the same process already followed that other restrictions can also be done – it’s NOT automatically “Unconstitutional”.

            We also KNOW there ARE graduations on the types of restrictions.

            For instance, the vast majority of folks are NOT getting on an airplane with a weapon not into a courtroom or a prison or a number of other venues.

            These ARE restrictions and as far as I can tell there is no individual”due process” – it’s fairly arbitrary.

            With weapons themselves, there ALSO seems to be DIFFERENT processes between different types of weapons – For instance, neither ordinary folks nor folks lately determined to be wackoos seem to be able to easily and legally obtain a Mac 10 or other automatic weapons as compared to say, an AR-15.

            How many mass killings have been done with automatic weapons in the US? Not too many and one presumes that the wackadoodles intent on killing as many as they could, would actually be able to obtain the most potent and effective killing weapon they could – IF THEY COULD but apparently the best they can do is the AR-15.

            I don’t claim to know the laws and regs that well.. but you guys act like you do.

            But there are some obvious questions about seeming contradictions to your claimed implications.

            We have laws and regs that apply to everyone in which no individual due process was accorded. It can be done and it has been done.

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    It is a pretty safe bet that family members or others knew or should have known this person had no business being armed. We’re back to the old lesson that we all are responsible, need to act to protect our fellow citizens, if we suspect somebody even might harbor the desire to kill like this. Nobody gets on the list that prevents a gun purchase automatically. You don’t need to have committed a crime but without that it takes some other finding.

    It has been a nice respite from these, but now the crowds are back in confined spaces creating dense and soft targets.

    I am infuriated by the efforts to make all this racial. This perp is Syrian. The VT killer Asian. The Virginia Beach killer African-American. I think the conventional wisdom about the European male is going by the wayside. Male, yes, and drenched in our too-violent culture, yes. Mentally ill, yes.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      As it stands you’re probably not going to get meaningful change on the mental health front without modification of the HIPPA laws.

      Even outside of that, you should provide an avenue to return that right. Otherwise you end up with a stigma where someone won’t seek help for fear of losing their rights. It is seen a good amount of time in the military.

      1. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Forget HIPPA laws, Matt. Been to the receptionist/appointment desk in a physician’s office lately?

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Easy if all you have to do is keep yourself in check. More difficult for public figures like Obama when asked. Yes, he shouldn’t have answered on partial information, but in his defense, not 6 months earlier, Hillary answered a reporter’s question with a 3-minute version of “I haven’t formed an opinion,” and was pilloried for NOT opining for their amusement.

    Lose-lose.

    1. But I’m the only person I can keep in check.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Is it can or may? Lemme thin’ on that.
        Karen usually gets her facts right. It’ her conclusions that are facocta.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I keep wondering how “weird dudes” that are “certifiable” are able to procure weapons in the first place. 2nd amendment means crazy people have the right to buy a gun.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “I keep wondering how “weird dudes” that are “certifiable” are able to procure weapons in the first place.”

      That statement requires a professional diagnosis. Unless someone has committed a crime and is a felony their rights cannot be removed.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Are we saying that people who have demonstrated through their actions that they have “issues” that they are still entitled to buy a weapon?

        true. Right?

        So after almost every mass murder, we find out the perpetrator had “issues” but could not be denied a weapon.. not only a weapon but a weapon capable of killing dozens quickly.. that guy is still entitled to buy that weapon?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          How have they demonstrated their actions?

          Also, there is a barrier that would prohibit medical professionals from supplying any information regarding medical conditions (it’s called HIPPA).

          Unless you’ve committed a crime your rights cannot be infringed. This isn’t a Tom Mapother IV movie.

          “not only a weapon but a weapon capable of killing dozens quickly.. that guy is still entitled to buy that weapon?”

          Your statement isn’t valid, any number of items can be used to kill dozens quickly.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so if the police have been called for an incident where others fear your actions?

            re: any number of weapons ..

            what kind used in most mass killings…?

            difference between the killing capacity of a knife or pistol and a 30-round weapon?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s not what you stated. Unless a person has been convicted of a crime they cannot have their rights removed.

            A 9-11 call isn’t a conviction nor are the Police able to determined sanity. Hence the current push to have counselors ride along with them.

            https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/6-reasons-gun-control-will-not-solve-mass-killings

            It’s not firearms, much to your chagrin.

            “difference between the killing capacity of a knife or pistol and a 30-round weapon?”

            https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50682236

            https://www.cbsnews.com/video/knife-attack-kills-dozens-in-southwest-china/

            Knives are silent, firearms are not. More facts, less emotion please.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If a person has exhibited behavior that has scared other people and they have reported it…. and the police have a record of it?

            knifes vs high capacity magazines?

            emotion? Nope. simple realities.

            No killer is going to kill 10 people with a knife in a few minutes.. just reality.

            How many mass killings with knives?
            How many with weapons with high capacity magazines?

            somewhere in the middle of this is some reality for those that want it.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So now the threshold to remove an individual’s rights enumerated vis the Constitution is they scared others? Does that apply to the 1st, 4th, 5th and so on?

            The term “high capacity” is arbitrary and coined by politicians.

            I gave you examples of just that.

            There is a wide world of interwebs where you can search whatever you desire, I’m not required to do that for you. Again, the term “high capacity” is arbitrary and coined by politicians who couldn’t tell you the parts that make up a firearm.

            Well if you believe that removal of rights without due process is “reality” fount me out of your world.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            easy to put specs on how many rounds per minute .. no?

            Is it a “removal of right” that most folks cannot own an RPG “arms”?

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Maximum rate of fire isn’t effective rate of fire.

            Larry, you can own an RPG if you follow the proper laws and procedures.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Point is – you CAN set specs.

            And if an RPG is a Constitutionally-permitted “arms”, why is it restricted more than other “arms”? Who decided that the Constitution did not apply the same way to ALL “arms” ? Did someone violate the Constitution when they set up additional restrictions? If we can set restrictions on RPGs , why not other arms deemed as such as the RPG?

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Set what “specs”?

            Ask the ATF, they made that determination in 1968.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The same specs that say what a gun store can sell or not sell.

            what is “legal” and what is not.

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Effective Rate of Fire is a specification, Sustained Rate of Fire is a specification, 1/6 NATO twist is a specification.

            The Law isn’t drafted upon “specification” it’s drafted upon attributes. hence the 1994 ban took exception to a bayonet lug. As if that is going to make a firearm anymore lethal.

            This is very reason why having this discussion with you is pointless, you don’t even know the terms or what you’re talking about.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Nope . The point is restrictions are made. On what basis is not as important as the fact that we do restrict on some basis as opposed to the idea that the Constitution allows AN “arms” to anyone.

            For instance, the Constitution says nothing at all about Felons being denied guns.

            If we can deny felons, why not others? Those charged with a crime? Those whose addresses don’t check out.?Those who have had prior run-ins with the law.

            The reality is that we DO have restrictions that pass Constitutional muster.

            It’s NOT “unConstitutional” to restrict”arms”.

          12. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Laws were passed in which thresholds were established. We could argue about their Constitutionality but that’s a completely separate issue.

            “For instance, the Constitution says nothing at all about Felons being denied guns.”

            Not all felon’s are denied the right to own a firearm and again that was established by Laws, to which if someone felt so inclined enter a Supreme Court Challenge.

            “If we can deny felons, why not others? Those charged with a crime? Those whose addresses don’t check out.?Those who have had prior run-ins with the law.”

            What crimes did those “others” commit which they were afforded due process?

            “The reality is that we DO have restrictions that pass Constitutional muster.

            It’s NOT “unConstitutional” to restrict”arms”.”

            You’re not the Supreme Court and therefore your statement on the matter is just your opinion (albeit a completely ignorant one, but your opinion).

          13. “easy to put specs on how many rounds per minute .. no?”

            No. The “rounds per minute” of a semi-automatic rifle (or pistol, or shotgun) is not a specification of the firearm. It is a function of how fast a shooter can repeatedly aim and pull the trigger. It varies depending upon a person’s dexterity and skill.

          14. Magazine capacity is almost completely irrelevant during a mass shooting.

            3, 10 round magazines = 1, 30 round magazine.

            Do you have any idea how quickly a proficient weapons handler can swap out a magazine in a semi-automatic rifle or pistol? Even I can swap one out in +/-5 seconds and three of my fingers are crippled.

        2. In this country, Larry, the law states that a person’s constitutional rights cannot be suspended without due process.

          I can remember when you “progressive” types were opposed to “prior restraint” and violations of due process.

          Do you remember when you “progressive” types argued that long-term involuntary commitment to mental hospitals was a violation of a person’s rights, and you got the laws changed and large numbers of our mental institutions were either greatly down-sized or closed altogether?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “I” argued that? when?

            is a restraining order a “prior restraint”?

            If you are charged with assault and no trial yet – can you still buy a gun?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If you’re charged with a crime you’re either out on bail or sitting in jail.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Right. So if you are charged and out on bail – can you still buy a gun?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That would be up to he court in which you were charged. Instead of asking all of this, why don’t you research yourself? There are a plethora of firearms laws on the books to which people are unaware and would like to pass similar.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well more fundamental than that.

            “Arms” in the Constitution apparently does NOT mean any/all “arms”.

            There are written laws and regs that define what IS and what IS NOT.

            correct?

            So those laws can be changed and modified with respect to what is defined as “arms” or not as they have already been before?

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Yes, yes it does.

            The limitations have been set via several Laws passed via Congress.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Is Congress violating the Constitution when they set these additional restrictions not set in the Constitution?

            How do we know which restrictions are “Constitutional” and which not? SCOTUS? So SCOTUS has said it’s okay to do these existing restrictions?

            A Mac 10 or RPG or other similar weapon CAN be Constitutionally restricted?

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Congress passed a Law, it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine if it is Unconstitutional.

            The same way we determine if any laws are Constitutional or not, they are brought before the Supreme Court.

            A Mac 10 is a select-fire weapon, if it was manufactured post 1986 it is illegal to own regardless of the qualifications you possess. If it was manufactured prior to 1986, you have the requisite background check, tax stamp and paid the unsightly price for it, it’s legal. The same is true for an RPG, however I don’t know why you’d want to own one. They like most shoulder fire projectiles while terrifying are only good with big targets because they aim for crap.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      With something like 1.01 guns per man, woman and child in civilian possession in the US, the question is “How do the unarmed nutsacks NOT have one?”

      4 per household; more than 1 per car.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      With something like 1.01 guns per man, woman and child in civilian possession in the US, the question is “How do the unarmed nutsacks NOT have one?”

      4 per household; more than 1 per car.

    4. The risk that “weird dudes” who are “certifiable” will harm others is part of living in a free society.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        It is obviously not just a “risk”. It is a fact.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          There are any number of weird dudes or dudettes who live in society. Their propensity to possibly harm someone (risk) will always exist.

          You can’t arbitrary remove rights because of “risk”.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Who is discussing “removing rights”?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The right to bear arms is an enumerated power under the Constitution.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Does the Constitutions guarantee you the right to own ANY kind of “arms”?

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Short sleeve shirts. And no. And the BS you are about to get on militias is wrong too.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I figure if these guys could get an RPG – they could be even more efficient – why fiddle with 10 people one by one – just do the store…

            Walk into a “gun” store, pass the background check, get your RPG and you’re in business.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            An RPG is a rocket propelled grenade, that’s going to require you beyond a background check currently. However, it’s fairly evident you’re unaware of the existing laws in firearms.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so how is an RPG not also an “arms” as defined in the Constitution?

            Who decided it was not?

            You say “existing laws” – I thought the Constitution was the authority on “arms”.

            Do we have folks making determinations about what are “arms” and what are not” such that “arms” as written in the Constitution does not really mean any/all “arms”?

          8. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            An RPG is an explosive device. Those are regulated by the ATF and have been so since 1968 (they were known as the ATU at that point).

            Again, instead of looking foolish read the laws that current exist to regulate firearms. Learn that most of what you wish to happen is in fact currently LAW.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            only person looking foolish is you.

            Is an RPG an “arm”

            How about a Mac 10?

            CLEARLY there are differences and you claim to know and even “correct” others, so do your thing here and clarify based on YOUR view and knowledge.

            It looks to me there ARE restrictions on weapons and yet we are told that the Constitution says it is a “right” with respect to “arms”.

            Who defines “arms” ?

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Not really, but you’re entitled to believe so.

            We’ve discussed this already, clearly you’ve not done any research on the topic nor the laws that govern firearm ownership. Which makes you arguing about it even more foolish.

            “CLEARLY there are differences and you claim to know and even “correct” others, so do your thing here and clarify based on YOUR view and knowledge.”

            Why? You couldn’t point out a firing pin and have not yet once understood what I’ve said.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The Constitution doesn’t specify. Does it specify that you’re freedom of speech is limited to the medium of the day?

          12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            That is true. So, who is discussing removing that right?

          13. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The person who doesn’t seem to understand the term “fact”, i.e. you.

          14. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Why do you feel compelled to lie? I said absolutely nothing about removing any rights. I used to think you were just ignorant in what you write. Now I know that you are simply straight up dishonest which is far worse.

          15. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I preempted your implications. I’m lying? That’s funny, it’s not something I’ve engaged in here. However, I suppose you’re entitled to your own opinion, or maybe you need your boss to tell you that as well.

            If you want dishonesty, find a mirror or your own twitter feed. It abounds.

          16. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I preempted your implications. I’m lying? That’s funny, it’s not something I’ve engaged in here. However, I suppose you’re entitled to your own opinion, or maybe you need your boss to tell you that as well.

            If you want dishonesty, find a mirror or your own twitter feed. It abounds.

          17. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You admit that you “preempted my (supposed) implications” yet you openly stated that I was “discussing removing rights”. Since you can’t “preempt” something I already was supposedly discussing (I wasn’t) then you admit your falsehood. Stop lying.

          18. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No, I preempted what history dictates your response would be. You reply in patterns, it’s fairly easy to know where you’re going to go.

            What’s your position on firearms possession? Haha I know you’re just going to lie now, it’s okay.

            You deride any and all who you think are “conservatives”, you’re predictable.

          19. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You continue to reinforce your dishonesty. You “preempted” me yet stated that I was already discussing what you supposedly preempted. So, riddle me this, Batman, why would I answer any question posed by someone who exhibits such dishonesty? No, thank you very much.

          20. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            So given your current tirade it’s safe to say I hit the nail on the head. I actually gleaned my information from your Twitter account, so to accuse me of “lying” is pretty funny.

            I would suggest that if you’re going to accuse others of being dishonest, you should close your f’n twitter feed that exposes your blatant hypocrisy.

        2. Yes, but a fact for which “weird dudes” who are “certifiable”? The overwhelming majority of “weird dudes” who are “certifiable” do NOT end up killing anyone.

          How do you tell which ones are going to be among the few who do?

          That is what I was referring to when I made my statement about risk.

          As a society, we decide to be free and deal with wackos and criminals doing wacky and criminal things on a case by case basis, or we decide to restrict freedom and we infringe on innocent people’s rights. I think we should stay as far away from the latter scenario as we can.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I agree, generally. I believe that the controversial Red Flag Laws are/were indeed an attempt to grapple with the very issue you highlight.

            There is a guaranteed tradeoff, however, and that is what I was pointing out. If we completely avoid restricting this particular freedom, we will experience more instances of wackos and criminals killing innocent people.

            I get that in the US the argument goes that this particular freedom is worth that tradeoff. Most other developed countries have not made that conclusion and the results demonstrate the relationship.

            I am really not commenting on the right or wrong of this tradeoff, but I think it important that we recognize it for the reality it is. Thanks for acknowledging what I was saying.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    DEATH PENALTY ABOLISHED IN FIRST SOUTHERN STATE.

  12. Since it appears many respondents have no idea what they are discussing:

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

    read this carefully: “The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited by Federal or State law from receiving a firearm. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine.”

    YET RARELY are violators arrested, charged, and prosecuted — when else do criminals give you all the info you need to ‘get them’ and wait around to be ‘gotten’?

    And for those who want to know about ‘verification’ — all entities in the USG [save background checks for Federal clearances] —- all parts of our local, state, and federal government accept government IDs as verification [think showing your license to TSA in the airport].

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      so how does this work:

      ” A fully auto MAC 10 is subject to the NFA rules, particularly the Firearm Owners Protection Act which banned the transfer and ownership of machinguns made after May 19, 1986. So a MAC 10 made before that date can be owned legally, after an intensive background check and tax.”

      Does this mean the Mac10 is an “arms” as defined by the Constitution and I have a “right” to own one ?

      Are folks who commit mass killings with AR-15 also would have been eligible to buy a Mac 10 instead but they did not know they could?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Can the TSA restrict your right to “arms”?

Leave a Reply