Posted on 02/20/2018 5:24:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Here we go again. This time it was at a high school in Florida. It has become depressingly familiar. Not just the horrific shooting, but also the words that come after something like this.
Officials assure us that the victims and their families are in their thoughts and prayers. Then come the calls for more restrictions on guns. Then we get the reminders that if we see something we need to say something. It's all so predictable.
But by now we know something else that's predictable: It's going to happen again -- if not at a school, then at a concert or a nightclub or a restaurant or an airport or even at a church.
Nikolas Cruz had been expelled from school for getting into a fight with another student. Kids who knew him said if anyone were ever going to shoot the place up, he would be the kid who did just that. And last September a comment left on social media said, "I'm going to be a professional school shooter." The name underneath the message: Nikolas Cruz.
A bail bondsman from Mississippi saw the comment and called the FBI. Five months later, just one day after the shooting, an FBI agent said, "No other information was included in the comment which would indicate a particular time, location, or the true identity of the person who posted the comment." The FBI said it reviewed databases and made other checks, but was, according to the agency, unable to identify the person who posted the comment.
It gets worse. A day after that announcement, the FBI admitted that on Jan. 5, a tipster who knew Cruz called the FBI and provided information about Cruz's guns, his desire to kill people, his erratic behavior and his disturbing social media posts. The FBI says the caller was concerned that Cruz might attack a school. CARTOONS | Lisa Benson View Cartoon
The tip should have been investigated, according to the FBI. It was not.
So much for "If you see something, say something." And so much for what some have called the "Best law enforcement agency in the world."
But even if the FBI had shown more competence and had found Cruz, what could its agents have done? They can't lock somebody up for posting disturbing remarks -- certainly not if he told them he was only kidding. Even people who eventually go on a killing spree have free speech rights.
And he bought his gun, a semi-automatic AR-15, legally. Sure he was mentally deranged -- nobody in his right mind does what he did -- but being a loner and a troublemaker who loves guns isn't a legal barrier to buying one.
And while everyone agrees mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, how do we determine that someone is mentally ill until he does something that really proves it?
Do we want laws compelling mental health professionals to report the names to a national data bank of anyone they're seeing for anger issues? For anyone who might go off the rails? Do we want laws that allow police and federal agents to lock people up if they give signs of mental illness -- but have not been violent? Do we want laws that prohibit the posting of gun pictures on social media -- or laws that ban vaguely threatening speech?
The same people who want more restrictions on guns would never sit still for more restrictions on speech or fewer restrictions on privacy.
So maybe the laws need to change. Maybe people like Nikolas Cruz should have been held a long time ago and forced to undergo a psychiatric exam. In retrospect, that might have done some good. But it's an idea loaded with the possibility of abuse.
There's already the predictable talk about banning AR-15s, the so-called assault rifles. They're not needed to protect families from intruders, the argument goes; hunters don't need them. Maybe something will happen this time, but it's not likely.
We can beef up security at our schools and that might help. But last November, 26 people were gunned down in Sutherlands Springs, Texas -- at the First Baptist Church. Do we need armed guards at prayer services all over America, too?
The problem -- and "problem" is not the right word -- is that we live in a free country. And in a free country we can lock up criminals after they commit crimes -- not before.
So let's tighten security at every school in the country; let's have the same familiar conversation about guns; let's all agree that mentally ill people should not be allowed to buy guns. Let's try to put an end to this American tragedy.
And then let's acknowledge that not much is going to change despite the fact that 17 more people are dead. We can tell the victims that they're in our thoughts and prayers, and after a while we'll resume our normal daily lives -- until it happens again. And we all know it will.
Think of the security that our Congresscritters have-both federal and state.”””
IIRC, there are only 7 CCW permits issued in the City of San Fran. 6 of those belong to DI FI & her bodyguards.
YOU are exactly correct. The ACLU bears some of the responsibility for all of this. They pressured Reagan to close the mental hospitals.
Our liberal Deep State - if run by Hillary - would use that same tactic against 'the deplorables'... Strip us of our rights based on being 'not mentally fit'...
There are solutions to these problems - we know that because we did NOT have school shooters anywhere in our history before Columbine.
Also there are NOT school shooters in other countries. It's unique to the United States - - and on some levels that's irrational. Giving into forming a "Russian style police state' in response to this aberration is NOT the answer.
Safe to say, CA as a state is finished.
BINGO! The winning post!
The ironic thing is that the FL shooting took place not just on Valentine’s Day but also the start of the Christian Lent, starts with Ash Wednesday.
The attacker gets to choose what weapons he brings, and how much ammo, and what tactics he/she is going to employ.
Responding police to a significant extent will, when they arrive, generally have that option as well.
The defender has to grab what is at hand, and will want the most versatile weapon possible - which includes sufficient ammo to give him/her options.
Generically carrying in that environment makes it orders of magnitude more likely that you will be sent to jail, your belongings taken from you, and your family's reputation ruined, than it will be you'll face a shooter.
You, they want to stop.
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.