Reporter and cameraman shot and killed by gunman still on loose.

Bob wrote:

Salinsky wrote:Better watch out, Bob.

My grandma always told me, "Bad wishes fall in your own britches.".

And, who needs their britches full of bad wishes?

Allison Parker's father:

"I talked to her every single day.  Not being able to talk to her now crushes my soul."

Bob wrote:bds,

What specific gun control measure is your solution to this particular incident?
What gun control exactly would have prevented this monster from getting a gun?

boards of FL wrote:We seem to have a problem with crazy people getting guns and then shooting others before shooting themselves, so I think a start would be to place stricter checks on gun purchases.  

I would also recommend applying strict liability to gun ownership - which means if you're a gun owner, and a crazy person is somehow able to take possession of your gun and use it in a manner similar to what today's shooter has - you're equally liable for that crime.   This would be no different than if I decided to have a pet lion in my backyard.  If that lion escapes and mauls a neighbor, it wouldn't matter how many precautions I took to prevent that from happening, it wouldn't matter how tall my fence was, I'm strictly liable for that death by virtue of the fact that I chose to partake in the ownership of something as dangerous as a lion.

If everyone is strictly liable for their guns and the harm they cause - in their own hands or not - they will have a greater incentive to keep those guns secure and out of the hands of the mentally ill.  

Bob wrote:How bout you,  Sal.  What gun control measure do you think would have prevented this?

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We seem to have a problem with crazy people getting guns and then shooting others before shooting themselves, so I think a start would be to place stricter checks on gun purchases.  

I would also recommend applying strict liability to gun ownership - which means if you're a gun owner, and a crazy person is somehow able to take possession of your gun and use it in a manner similar to what today's shooter has - you're equally liable for that crime.   This would be no different than if I decided to have a pet lion in my backyard.  If that lion escapes and mauls a neighbor, it wouldn't matter how many precautions I took to prevent that from happening, it wouldn't matter how tall my fence was, I'm strictly liable for that death by virtue of the fact that I chose to partake in the ownership of something as dangerous as a lion.

If everyone is strictly liable for their guns and the harm they cause - in their own hands or not - they will have a greater incentive to keep those guns secure and out of the hands of the mentally ill.  

I have no problem whatever with supporting all of that.  Because I see no downside to it personally.  And if it prevented even some of this shit it would serve it's purpose.

But I don't think any of that would have been worth spit in this case.

First of all,  this maggot is dead (and thanks again to the gods for answering my prayer).  
I don't think even the most greedy tort lawyer in America would ever even consider filing a liability claim against this dead maggot who probably didn't have 2 nickels to rub together.  So that part is a non-starter.

I've been watching cable news on this all morning.  I've seen no indication that this maggot had ever been designated "mentally ill" by anyone or any authority.  His "mental illness" was discovered AFTER the fact.
So unless we mandate that every single American has to be evaluated by a shrink at a very early age,  that's a non-starter in this case too.

All this "gun control" stuff sounds so good in theory.  But in practice it really is comparable to Trump's "solutions" to just about everything. lol

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We seem to have a problem with crazy people getting guns and then shooting others before shooting themselves, so I think a start would be to place stricter checks on gun purchases.  

I would also recommend applying strict liability to gun ownership - which means if you're a gun owner, and a crazy person is somehow able to take possession of your gun and use it in a manner similar to what today's shooter has - you're equally liable for that crime.   This would be no different than if I decided to have a pet lion in my backyard.  If that lion escapes and mauls a neighbor, it wouldn't matter how many precautions I took to prevent that from happening, it wouldn't matter how tall my fence was, I'm strictly liable for that death by virtue of the fact that I chose to partake in the ownership of something as dangerous as a lion.

If everyone is strictly liable for their guns and the harm they cause - in their own hands or not - they will have a greater incentive to keep those guns secure and out of the hands of the mentally ill.  

I have no problem whatever with supporting all of that.  Because I see no downside to it personally.  And if it prevented even some of this shit it would serve it's purpose.

But I don't think any of that would have been worth spit in this case.

First of all,  this maggot is dead (and thanks again to the gods for answering my prayer).  
I don't think even the most greedy tort lawyer in America would ever even consider filing a liability claim against this dead maggot who probably didn't have 2 nickels to rub together.  So that part is a non-starter.

I've been watching cable news on this all morning.  I've seen no indication that this maggot had ever been designated "mentally ill" by anyone or any authority.  His "mental illness" was discovered AFTER the fact.
So unless we mandate that every single American has to be evaluated by a shrink at a very early age,  that's a non-starter in this case too.

All this "gun control" stuff sounds so good in theory.  But in practice it really is comparable to Trump's "solutions" to just about everything. lol

boards of FL wrote:
Purchasing a gun should involve a thorough application process of background checks, psychiatric evaluations, long waiting periods etc etc

Salinsky wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:We seem to have a problem with crazy people getting guns and then shooting others before shooting themselves, so I think a start would be to place stricter checks on gun purchases.  

I would also recommend applying strict liability to gun ownership - which means if you're a gun owner, and a crazy person is somehow able to take possession of your gun and use it in a manner similar to what today's shooter has - you're equally liable for that crime.   This would be no different than if I decided to have a pet lion in my backyard.  If that lion escapes and mauls a neighbor, it wouldn't matter how many precautions I took to prevent that from happening, it wouldn't matter how tall my fence was, I'm strictly liable for that death by virtue of the fact that I chose to partake in the ownership of something as dangerous as a lion.

If everyone is strictly liable for their guns and the harm they cause - in their own hands or not - they will have a greater incentive to keep those guns secure and out of the hands of the mentally ill.  

I have no problem whatever with supporting all of that.  Because I see no downside to it personally.  And if it prevented even some of this shit it would serve it's purpose.

But I don't think any of that would have been worth spit in this case.

First of all,  this maggot is dead (and thanks again to the gods for answering my prayer).  
I don't think even the most greedy tort lawyer in America would ever even consider filing a liability claim against this dead maggot who probably didn't have 2 nickels to rub together.  So that part is a non-starter.

I've been watching cable news on this all morning.  I've seen no indication that this maggot had ever been designated "mentally ill" by anyone or any authority.  His "mental illness" was discovered AFTER the fact.
So unless we mandate that every single American has to be evaluated by a shrink at a very early age,  that's a non-starter in this case too.

All this "gun control" stuff sounds so good in theory.  But in practice it really is comparable to Trump's "solutions" to just about everything. lol

Purchasing a gun should involve a thorough application process of background checks, psychiatric evaluations, long waiting periods, completion of courses in securing weapons, etc, etc....all paid for by the applicant.  If someone goes through all that and clears all requirements, well, then I suppose they can play with their guns and live out their GI Joe fantasies.   And we should apply strict liability on those owners.

If we had these rules today, we could say that it is very likely that 1) this guy would not have been able to purchase a gun (legally, at least) Why do you think that?or 2) if he stole the gun used in the crime, we could then hold the gun's owner strictly liable for these deaths. It will never happen! Cops and individuals have been attacked and had their guns stolen.  That would at least leave us with one less irresponsible gun owner who leaves their guns unsecured and open for use by the mentally ill.

Bob wrote:How bout this for an alternative kind of "gun control".

A mandatory 5 year prison stretch without parole for anyone found in possession of a firearm while in the act of committing any felony (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree).
Y
That wouldn't stop what happened today.  But it would discourage many from carrying guns to a crime.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Yes, gun control will certainly control the psychos walking the streets.

I think the idea is to keep the guns out of the hands of psychos.  

Salinsky wrote:

Bob wrote:How bout you,  Sal.  What gun control measure do you think would have prevented this?

I don't think we know enough about the killer to say what measures may or may not have prevented this.

But, just because a specific measure wouldn't prevent every tragic crime from occurring, does not mean the measure has no value.

I believe all guns should be registered, universal background checks should be thorough, the mental health care industry should be fully involved and fully funded, people convicted of violent crimes should be prevented from owning firearms, gun manufacturers should be required to incorporate biometric chips in all new guns, sentences for crimes committed with a firearm should be mandatory and draconian, high capacity magazines should be banned, there should be a meaningful tax on all ammunition, and I have no objection to Board's idea that the gun owner should bear liability if their gun is used in the commission of a crime by another person.

Would any of these measures have stopped today's shooting.

I don't know.

But, they would stop some shootings, and that's good enough.