Gunman was bullied as a child, grew increasingly violent, friends say

  
Via:  Just Jim NC TttH  •  one month ago  •  109 comments

By:   Robert Klemko, Silvia Foster-Frau, Shawn Boburg

Gunman was bullied as a child, grew increasingly violent, friends say
The gunman in Tuesday’s elementary school massacre was a lonely 18-year-old who was bullied over a childhood speech impediment, suffered from a fraught home life and lashed out violently against peers and strangers recently and over the years, friends and relatives said.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Today's America

Today's America

This tells the story of his life.....


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The gunman in Tuesday’s elementary school massacre was a lonely 18-year-old who was bullied over a childhood speech impediment, suffered from a fraught home life and lashed out violently against peers and strangers recently and over the years, friends and relatives said.

Using weapons purchased this month, days after his 18th birthday, authorities said, Salvador Rolando Ramos shot and critically wounded his grandmother. He then went on a shooting rampage at Robb Elementary School near his home in Uvalde, Tex.,  killing at least 19 children and two adults   and injuring others.

Ramos also was fatally shot, apparently by police. The Texas Department of Public Safety said he was wearing body armor and armed with a rifle. But Lt. Christopher Olivarez, a spokesman for the agency, clarified on Wednesday that the gunman wore a vest used to store extra magazines — often used by tactical police units — without the armor plates that law enforcement officers typically wear. Olivarez said the gunman had no known criminal history and no known gang affiliation.

Live updates: 21 killed in Texas school shooting; victims from same fourth-grade classroom

Santos Valdez Jr., 18, said he has known Ramos since early elementary school. They were friends, he said, until Ramos’s behavior started to deteriorate.

They used to play video games such as Fortnite and Call of Duty. But then Ramos changed. Once, Valdez said, Ramos pulled up to a park where they often played basketball and had cuts all over his face. He first said a cat had scratched his face.

“Then he told me the truth, that he’d cut up his face with knives over and over and over,” Valdez said. “I was like, ‘You’re crazy, bro, why would you do that?’”

Ramos said he did it for fun, Valdez recalled.

In middle school and junior high, Ramos was bullied for having a stutter and a strong lisp, friends and family said.

Stephen Garcia, who considered himself Ramos’s best friend in eighth grade, said Ramos didn’t have it easy in school. “He would get bullied hard, like bullied by a lot of people,” Garcia said. “Over social media, over gaming, over everything.”

“He was the nicest kid, the most shyest kid. He just needed to break out of his shell.”

One time, he posted a photo of himself wearing black eyeliner, Garcia said, which brought on a slew of comments using a derogatory term for a gay person.

Garcia said he tried to stand up for him. But when Garcia and his mother relocated to another part of Texas for her job, “he just started being a different person,” Garcia said. “He kept getting worse and worse, and I don’t even know.”

When Garcia left, Ramos dropped out of school. He started wearing all black, Garcia said, and large military boots. He grew his hair out long.

He missed long periods of high school, classmates said, and was not on track to graduate with them this year.

Since Sandy Hook massacre, 10 years of failure on gun control

Ramos’s cousin Mia said she saw students mock his speech impediment when they attended middle school together. He’d brush it off in the moment, Mia said, then complain later to his grandmother that he didn’t want to go back to school.

“He wasn’t very much of a social person after being bullied for the stutter,” said Mia, who spoke on the condition that her last name not be used because her family does not want to be associated with the massacre. “I think he just didn’t feel comfortable anymore at school.”

Valdez said Ramos drove around with another friend at night sometimes and shot at random people with a BB gun. He also egged people’s cars, Valdez said.

About a year ago, Ramos posted on social media photos of automatic rifles that “he would have on his wish list,” Valdez said. Four days ago, he posted images of two rifles he referred to as “my gun pics.”

A person briefed on the investigation’s early findings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said Ramos bought the weapon used in the attack immediately after his 18th birthday, which was in mid-May.

Biden voices grief and anger at school shooting: ‘I’m sick of it’

Two months ago, he posted an Instagram story in which he screamed at his mother, who he said was trying to kick him out of their home, said Nadia Reyes, a high school classmate.

“He posted videos on his Instagram where the cops were there and he’d call his mom a b---- and say she wanted to kick him out,” Reyes said. “He’d be screaming and talking to his mom really aggressively.”

Ruben Flores, 41, said he lived next door to the family on Hood Street and tried to be a kind of father figure to Ramos, who had “a pretty rough life with his mom.”

He and his wife, Becky Flores, would invite Ramos to barbecues at their house and for sleepovers with their son, who was a few years younger. Ramos went by the nickname “pelon,” Spanish for bald, because his hair was often cut so short when he was younger, Flores said.

As he grew older, problems at home became more acute and more apparent to neighbors, Flores said. He described seeing police at the house and witnessing blowups between Ramos and his mother.

Multiple people familiar with the family, including Flores, said Ramos’s mother used drugs, which contributed to the upheaval in the home. Ramos’s mother could not be reached for comment.

Ramos moved from the Hood Street home to his grandmother’s home across town a few months ago, Flores said. He said he last saw the grandmother on Sunday, when she stopped by the Hood Street property, which she also owned. The grandmother told him she was in the process of evicting Ramos’s mother because of her drug problems, Flores said.

Reyes said she could recall about five times that Ramos had fistfights with peers in middle school and junior high. His friendships were short-lived, she said. Once, Ramos commented to a friend while playing basketball that the friend only wanted to join the Marines one day so he could kill people, Reyes said. The other boy, she added, ended the friendship on the spot.

“He would take things too far, say something that shouldn’t be said, and then he would go into defense mode about it,” Reyes said.

She and her Uvalde High School school classmates had visited Robb Elementary School just a day before the massacre, wearing their graduation robes and high-fiving the grade-schoolers, who lined up in the hallways — a community tradition.

“Those kids were so excited to see us in our cap and gown,” Reyes said. “They’re looking at us like, ‘I’m gonna be there one day.’ It’s surreal, like we’re in a movie. It’s horrible.”

Valdez said his last interaction with Ramos was about two hours before the shooting, when they messaged on Instagram’s Stories feature. Valdez had re-shared a meme that said “WHY TF IS SCHOOL STILL OPEN.”

According to a screenshot of their exchange, Ramos responded: “Facts” and “That’s good tho right?” Then Valdez replied: “Idek [I don’t even know] I don’t even go to school lmao.”

Ramos never responded to or opened that text message, Valdez said.

Just a month or two ago, Garcia said, he called Ramos to check in on him.

But Ramos said he was going hunting with his uncle and didn’t have time to talk. He hung up. Garcia later saw the photos of large guns that Ramos had posted online and wondered whether that was what they were for — going hunting, or to the shooting range with his uncle.

On Tuesday, Garcia was in algebra class in San Antonio when he started receiving a slew of texts with the news of what had happened in Uvalde. He didn’t believe it at first. He opened his phone’s browser and Googled the shooting and saw Ramos’s name.

“I couldn’t even think, I couldn’t even talk to anyone. I just walked out of class, really upset, you know, bawling my eyes out,” Garcia said. “Because I never expected him to hurt people.”

“I think he needed mental help. And more closure with his family. And love.”


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

If you see something, say something. This needs to be read. By everyone.

Seems to be a very common denominator.............

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago

[Please stalk and troll elsewhere.]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    one month ago
Nuff said

If you only really meant that.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    one month ago

The left doesn't want to address the real issues of bullying, mental health, and getting those that need it help.

They would rather infringe upon a right that is enumerated in the Constitution by trying to ban an inanimate object that cannot harm anyone on it's own.

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    one month ago

[personal attack]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    one month ago

If you see something, say something. This needs to be read. By everyone.

So profound.

[delete]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    one month ago
The left doesn't want to address the real issues of bullying, mental health, and getting those that need it help.

Because that would mean that they actually have to do something.  It's much easier to blame an inanimate object and walk away blissfully ignorant.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago

We are not the blissfully ignorant ones.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.7  afrayedknot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago

“…an inanimate object…”

So fucking stale.

How in gawds name do we pass laws allowing fractured individuals to legally obtain, load, and shoot such weapons…and in the aftermath of the mourning, funerals, and memorials…somehow excuse the inevitable outcome.

It is simply sickening. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
1.1.8  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.7    one month ago
How in gawds name do we pass laws allowing fractured individuals to legally obtain, load, and shoot such weapons

Who knew in this case? And the ones who should have, didn't speak up it looks like...................

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago
It's much easier to blame an inanimate object and walk away blissfully ignorant.

It's not being Blissfully Ignorant, it's better described as WILLFULLY IGNORANT....

They know they are being deliberately ignorant to advance a political agenda...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.9    one month ago

Where you been?

I really missed you!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    one month ago

I agree. I would not describe anyone of the far left blissful.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.7    one month ago
“…an inanimate object…” So fucking stale.

But true.  You pass laws that affect the law abiding citizens of the country.  That's it.  These laws don't do a goddamn thing to protect people.  It gives YOU the warm and fuzzy that you "did something". 

Reality is you and the rest of the blissfully ignorant didn't do a fucking thing to slow weapons related killings.

It is simply sickening

it is sickening.  That you would rather pass a law that will be enforced just like every other failed attempt than help somebody.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    one month ago

Keep telling yourself that.  Now fuck off.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.14  afrayedknot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.12    one month ago

“Reality is you and the rest of the blissfully ignorant didn't do a fucking thing to slow weapons related killings.“

As opposed to those who propose arming teachers, administrators, hiring armed guards, allowing unregulated open-carry, etc, ad nauseam? More guns is not the answer, it is just ignoring the question. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.13    one month ago

Why so bitter, hateful, and angry all the time?  Blissful ignorance?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.16  Greg Jones  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.7    one month ago

Nothing can done about these nut jobs until they have a police and/or judicial record. And all the laws and backdrop checks in the world won't stop a determined shooter.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.16    one month ago

What's a backdrop check?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.14    one month ago
As opposed to those who propose arming teachers, administrators, hiring armed guards, allowing unregulated open-carry, etc, ad nauseam?

Where did I say that was an option?  Link the comment.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.14    one month ago
As opposed to those who propose arming teachers, administrators, hiring armed guards, allowing unregulated open-carry, etc, ad nauseam?

Security doors and armed guards go a long way toward reducing the problem.  I realize they're not popular with a certain section of people, but an armed officer and security doors would have saved most or all of those lives in Uvalde.

When I heard this story, my first question was "how the hell did an 18 yr old get into an elementary school?"  Every single campus in my Texas school district has security doors.

More guns is not the answer, it is just ignoring the question. 

I disagree strongly with arming teachers and administrators.  I strongly support armed police officers on campus and secure access.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.20  Gulliver  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    one month ago
They would rather infringe upon a right that is enumerated in the Constitution by trying to ban an inanimate object that cannot harm anyone on it's own.  

I would like to remove the second amendment from the constitution.

I will not be ambiguous about that.

If the right could spend 50 years taking away women's access to abortion the left can spend as long turning gun ownership into a privilege as opposed to a right.

The second amendment has been tortured into a meaning it did not originally mean. Bearing arms in the service of a well regulated militia does not mean concealing a handgun under your jacket in the subway in the service of committing a murder. It does not mean driving around with a couple of AR15s on a school day. The $upreme Court is corrupt and the only solution for our 2nd amendment is a new amendment that cannot be taken to give such an obscene right to walk around prepared to murder at will.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.20    one month ago

Good luck on a Constitutional amendment banning the Second.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.20    one month ago
I would like to remove the second amendment from the constitution

Which method do you want to persue:

  • An amendment proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
  • Constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.20    one month ago

[Deleted] you are more than willing to take away rights of law abiding citizens.  Do you realize that won't do a damn thing?  The only people that would turn-in weapons with that kind of nonsense are those that abide by the laws.  The criminal element will continue to keep and obtain more weapons.  

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.24  Gulliver  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.21    one month ago

Thank you.

I am going to write my congress members and encourage them to get started.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
1.1.25  Sunshine  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.20    one month ago
The second amendment has been tortured into a meaning it did not originally mean

How is that?

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.26  Gulliver  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.2    one month ago
They would rather infringe upon a right that is enumerated in the Constitution by trying to ban an inanimate object that cannot harm anyone on it's own.

Also, the second amendment wasn't enumerated in the constitution. That's why it is called an amendment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.24    one month ago
Thank you. I am going to write my congress members and encourage them to get started

You are welcome.

Personally don't think you'll have much impact, but good luck anyway!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.28  Ronin2  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.20    one month ago
If the right could spend 50 years taking away women's access to abortion the left can spend as long turning gun ownership into a privilege as opposed to a right.

Show where abortion is enumerated in the Constitution? 7 unelected career judges making a law up out of thin air is not a right. Notice you don't bitch about the left making laws giving women the right to abortion on demand up to birth. The left had 50 years to codify Roe into law at the federal level; but refused to do so. They held majorities in the House, Senate, and Presidency for long periods during that time; but never got around to it. It meant far more to them as a political talking point.

The second amendment has been tortured into a meaning it did not originally mean. Bearing arms in the service of a well regulated militia does not mean concealing a handgun under your jacket in the subway in the service of committing a murder. It does not mean driving around with a couple of AR15s on a school day. The $upreme Court is corrupt and the only solution for our 2nd amendment is a new amendment that cannot be taken to give such an obscene right to walk around prepared to murder at will.

In your vast legal opinion only. If the founding fathers had access to modern military weapons you don't think they would have used them? Think the military would appreciate a bunch of recruits well trained on how to load and fire a muzzle loader? If you don't want a gun, then don't own one as simple as that. Further than that you don't have the ability to take away anyone else's rights because you don't like the inanimate object they happen to own. One that will never hurt you by itself.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.29  Gulliver  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.27    one month ago

Like I said, if the pro-life (before birth) movement could spend 50 years overturning Roe v Wade. the pro-life (after birth) movement can spend 50 years overturning an amendment to the constitution.

It begins with explicitly acknowledging that the 2nd amendment, itself, is the root of our gun problems in America.

What kind of gun would Jesus ban?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.29    one month ago
Like I said, if the pro-life (before birth) movement could spend 50 years overturning Roe v Wade. the pro-life (after birth) movement can spend 50 years overturning an amendment to the constitution.

Have at it.

It begins with explicitly acknowledging that the 2nd amendment, itself, is the root of our gun problems in America.

Opinions do vary on that.

What kind of gun would Jesus ban?

I have no idea, do you?

Are we supposed to assume that Jesus could ban anything despite the US Constitution?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.31  Ronin2  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.26    one month ago

Really?

.

While unenumerated rights include the right to travel or privacy, enumerated rights include:
  • Freedom of speech.
  • Freedom of religion.
  • The right to bear arms.
  • The right to a fair trial.
 
Those rights come from early amendments to the constitution .

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.32  Gulliver  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.25    one month ago
How is that?

Here is the original text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People are acting like the first thirteen words of this sentence have no meaning at all. They just skip right to, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those last fourteen words are contingent upon the first thirteen. What does it mean to have a well regulated militia? What does it mean to be a member of a well regulated militia? Are the weapons kept in a local armory? Are they kept at home? Do the individual counties decide? What does it mean to bear arms? Is bearing arms carrying arms in the service of militia duty?

Walking into a supermarket with a loaded gun in a holster is not bearing arms in the service of a cause of the security of a free state. If anything, people walking around with all these guns in an unregulated manner has made our free state less secure.

 They had a lot of scenarios on their minds back then. They had seen angry armed mobs and they had lived through an occupying army.

What they didn't have in mind was Joe Six Pack carrying an AR15 into the local Piggly Wiggly to run a quick errand. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.32    one month ago
Those last fourteen words are contingent upon the first thirteen.

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause.  The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”  See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867)"

What does it mean to be a member of a well regulated militia?

"the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.'

” What does it mean to bear arms?

"The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence."

"We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.”  Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.”  Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.34  Jack_TX  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.29    one month ago
Like I said, if the pro-life (before birth) movement could spend 50 years overturning Roe v Wade. the pro-life (after birth) movement can spend 50 years overturning an amendment to the constitution.

It's been done before.  I think the last time was 1933.

It begins with explicitly acknowledging that the 2nd amendment, itself, is the root of our gun problems in America.

I don't think there is any empirical evidence to support that.  It predates "our gun problems in America" by centuries.  

What kind of gun would Jesus ban?

Interesting way to phrase the question.  It seems to ignore the fact that Jesus lived in a far, far, far more brutal world than we do.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.35  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.33    one month ago
"the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.'

So then you are all subject to being well regulated in your gun ownership.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.36  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.35    one month ago
So then you are all subject to being well regulated in your gun ownership.

See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.37  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.36    one month ago

So get trained, get certified, pass a background check, and show up for your annual militia duty.

And the rest of the time keep your guns in a locker at the local police station.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Quiet
1.1.38  TTGA  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.22    one month ago
  • An amendment proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
  • Constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

It takes more than that.  In addition to passage by either a convention or 2/3 of both houses of Congress, such an amendment requires the approval of 3/4 of the States, either by action of a convention within the State or by the State Legislature.  My math shows that any combination of 13 States voting NO can shut the whole thing down.  Can you come up with 13 States who would tell those proposing such an Amendment to go to hell.  I can.

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.39  Gulliver  replied to  TTGA @1.1.38    one month ago
Can you come up with 13 States who would tell those proposing such an Amendment to go to hell. 

Can you come up with a nation undergoing drastic demographic change that will have little patience for white gun nuts 50 years from now?

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.41  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.36    one month ago

So then you are all subjected to being adjusted by rule or method.

Keep your guns in a locker at the local police station and remain a member in good standing in your community to be allowed to participate in your well regulated militia activities.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.42  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.39    one month ago
Can you come up with a nation undergoing drastic demographic change that will have little patience for white gun nuts 50 years from now?

Who tries to predict 50 years into the future?  I would be 118 and dead for 30 years or so.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.43  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.41    one month ago
Keep your guns in a locker at the local police station and remain a member in good standing in your community to be allowed to participate in your well regulated militia activities.

Sure thing, fantasies are fun aren’t they?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.44  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.39    one month ago
ographic change that will have little patience for white gun nuts 50 years from now?

Little soon to be championing replacement theory?  

But can you imagine telling someone 50 years ago  it would be offensive to say only women have babies,  or that men shouldn't  compete in women athletics? '

Racialist stereotypes asides, no one has any idea what Americans will believe in 50 years will believe, and some things will almost certainly be incredibly  surprising to contemporary Americans. 

 
 
 
Gulliver
Freshman Guide
1.1.45  Gulliver  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.1.42    one month ago
Who tries to predict 50 years into the future?

People who want to change the world.

I will also be leaving a warming planet choking on microplastics to those who come after me but I want to leave a better world in that regard too.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.46  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.45    one month ago

Go for it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.45    one month ago

50 years ago, 1972, we were worried about nuclear winter, Paul Ehrlich declared that by 1980 “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death”, Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.48  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.8    one month ago

His school administration HAD to know there could be a problem.  Maybe the problem is that everyone is afraid of being sued if they say something.  Seems to me there have been a lot of frivolous law cases lately, and lawyers are predators for anything that can earn them a buck.  I think I have the right to say that.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gulliver @1.1.20    one month ago

I agree.  I don't see its purpose.  Why would a supposedly civilized advanced society that considers itself "exceptional" and the bastion of democracy require it any more than horse watering troughs?  Why are such constraints required for the American people - are they on the edge of insanity?  Wait a sec, I'm forgetting the Jan6 insurrection, and the fact that freedom and personal rights are more important than the good of the family, the community and the nation.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.50  Right Down the Center  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.13    one month ago
Now fuck off.

If I second that motion does it count against my allowable fuck offs?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.51  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.1.50    one month ago

I'm not sure.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago
If you see something, say something. This needs to be read. By everyone.

I think there needs to be at least some conversation around making this law.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    one month ago

Oh no, not necessary.  Jim said all that needed to be said.  Problem solved!

'Nuff said.

And so profound!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.1    one month ago
Jim said all that needed to be said.

When and where did he say that?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Quiet
1.3  Colour Me Free  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    one month ago
If you see something, say something.

And if / when no one listens?  Why is it 'if you see something - say something'  .. why is it not ' if you recognize a problem, do something' .. saying something is not always enough!

This young man was not 'made' overnight .... and not every really messed up young person is a killer. sooo who is the judge of an individuals mental health - should everyone be required to see a shrink?

I am going to [most likely] piss off every Second Amendment advocate in the house [and I am one] .. but wow an 18 year old should not be able to flash an ID, to buy a rifle and ammo for anything bigger than a BB gun ...!  Anyone purchasing a fire arm prob needs to have a minimum number of hours in gun safety training ... def for a young person it should be MANDITORY!  My sons started shooting trap and skeet at age 9 .. were taught safety before they ever fired a round .. and when my oldest was struggling, I got him help.  Not the schools job to take care of everything ..!  Parents need to be more involved with their children by asking questions of them at a young age .. everyday after school my boyz and I sat down and talked about their day .. might not be a daily check in now, as we no longer live in the same house.. but 'we' still have our sit downs and talk.. when I could not be with my youngest at the ER, I sat up all night talking with him so he would not be there alone..

All that said, I am tired of the blame being tossed around!  There are school resource officer on most 'ish school campuses in the US .. why not security .. there is security everywhere else, at the mall, movie theaters etc etc .. children are not afraid of a security person, they feel safe  .. why the fuck do parents not fight for that?  Schools should be monitored during school hours, not just anyone can walk in, they must check in before even entering the building..  it would be so simple to implement .. expensive perhaps, but what is your child's life worth to you?  [generic you  :]  .. so instead of once again screaming at the sky, asking a government that cannot not agree on anything to save the day - take action - parents can demand that schools are secure!

Peace Jim - this is as far as I am reading, I found my halo  : )

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago

This kid was failed on so many different levels by so many people.  

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
2.1  JaneDoe  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    one month ago

Yep! IMO, His Parents, the people in the schools who turned a blind eye to the bullying etc… He was broken and took out his anger on the innocent. We need to do better for the mentally damaged people in our society or things will never change. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JaneDoe @2.1    one month ago

"The   Post  also wrote that Flores and other people who knew the family said Ramos' mother used drugs. The situation in the household resulted in Ramos moving in with his grandmother, who also owns the Hood Street house. Flores told the newspaper that the grandmother told him she was trying to evict Ramos' mother because of her drug use."

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
2.1.2  JaneDoe  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.1    one month ago

Drug addiction and parenting will never be a good combination.

the grandmother told him she was trying to evict Ramos' mother because of her drug use."

I wonder if Mom was supplying him with drugs. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago

One glaring problem is that this just-turned-18 year old guy was able to purchase guns and ammo.

It is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that those who acquire weapons have the proper training and historical credentials.    The extremely super majority of responsible gun owners should (it would seem) seek that.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
One glaring problem is that this just-turned-18 year old guy was able to purchase guns and ammo.

If he was charged for shooting people with a BB gun that should have come up on a background check. If he wasn't then you can blame the system. Background checks are only as good as the information provided them.

It is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that those who acquire weapons have the proper training and historical credentials.    The extremely super majority of responsible gun owners should (it would seem) seek that.

The vast majority of gun owners don't have a problem with proper training or background checks. Define proper training. Is it a parent or grand parent teaching someone gun safety? Or like I learned from my best friend that had extensive military training? Or is a licensed course (like driver's training) that the purchaser has to take (I take refresher gun safety and training courses every few months. Mostly so I don't get rusty. Ammo is getting to damn expensive to practice every week like I would like to)? 

This 18 year old never received the help he needed. The system allowed him to be bullied. The system didn't care about his family issues. The system didn't care about his depression and obvious developing mental issues. No amount of background checks is ever going to work if he system isn't fixed first.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    one month ago

Seems to me you are arguing against more stringent qualifications before one purchases firearms.   Why?   Do you think what we have in place works?

Right off the bat, we should require a certification by an accredited training organization that deems the purchaser to be properly trained in gun safety and has demonstrated the proper temperament to be entrusted with weapons.

Second, new gun purchasers should require sponsorship.   Sponsors will be motivated to ensure those they sponsor are responsible and grounded since their reputation is on the line.

Clearly we can do better.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    one month ago

And we can't fix the system until we get accurate data on the problem, ie what the problem actually is... (according to the last gun study done)

To get that accurate data is going to face off against many liberal theories... like the insane have a right to privacy, the insane have a right to not have their developing insanity handled appropriately... 

The left ideals of rights butts heads against every persons right to be safe in their selfs and persons... We have a problems in this country that is out of balance... The group against the individual... What is blindly good for the group is not always good for the individual and the reverse is also true what is blindly good for the individual is not always good for the group...

Absolutism is the enemy... 

Until we acknowledge that and accept it this is the life we are doomed to live in... The easiest solution?

Guns are good when used appropriately, VERY BAD when not....  The simplest solution use the gun to protect the schools...

Guaranteed the shooters and potential shooters will leave the schools alone when they know that upon arrival they will be facing dozens of guns in defense of the target... Also, anyone that shows up at or is found with a gun at a school illegally, is already proven themselves a mental defective not entitled to possess guns...

But I don't think the liberals can handle the excellent defensive capacity of guns, it will cause their heads to explode if it is proven that guns are the best defense against a crazy person with a gun... That is what was pointed out in the last gun study, and that there is insufficient data to make that common sense premise stick... Hence no more gun studies cause that aspect of guns effects on a society has never before been studied....

Liberals do not want that aspect studied... They simply set up targets with their No Gun Zones and invite the crazies in to fire away...

Hell, even Antifa knows that you don't burn down the stores that have armed men guarding them...

So not all liberals are stupid... so what's wrong with the rest of them?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    one month ago
Seems to me you are arguing against more stringent qualifications before one purchases firearms.   Why?   Do you think what we have in place works?

I am arguing that the system needs to be fixed that allows an individual like this to slip through the cracks. Someone that obviously needs help. Was there anything in his background that would have shown up in any background check?

Right off the bat, we should require a certification by an accredited training organization that deems the purchaser to be properly trained in gun safety and has demonstrated the proper temperament to be entrusted with weapons.

You don't think he couldn't have passed a gun safety course? Really? If my friend could drill into me how to safely handle and use a gun; and the instructors I have now can refine my technique even further. Unless someone is a complete idiot they can pass a gun safety course. Think that driver's training gets all bad drivers off the road? My daily drive home proves otherwise with all the accidents I see caused by brain dead drivers.

Second, new gun purchasers should require sponsorship.   Sponsors will be motivated to ensure those they sponsor are responsible and grounded since their reputation is on the line.

Great infringement on an enumerated right in the Constitution. The friend that trained me in firearm use is dead from cancer. As much as the instructors I use love my money; and love my quirkiness in gun choice due to ligament damage in my right hand- they wouldn't sponsor me. I have no close relatives left that own guns. I wouldn't ask any of my friends to do it; nor would I expect them to ask me. So since I am more or less a loner and can't stand dealing with people for the most part; I shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm? Speaking on behalf of all the loners out there that are no threat to anyone; who has also owned firearms the last 30 years off and on (definitely on now since I own 3 for home protection. One for every level of my house.)- hell no to the sponsor requirement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.3    one month ago
I am arguing that the system needs to be fixed that allows an individual like this to slip through the cracks.

Of course.   And part of that is to have more rigorous requirements for someone to purchase a gun.   The other part is to detect the potential nutcases before they try to purchase (or steal or blackmarket purchase) weapons for malicious intent.

You don't think he couldn't have passed a gun safety course? Really?

Is that what I wrote?   No, in fact, that is not what I wrote.   I gave an example of how we can make gun purchasing more rigorous.   Note that I am talking about an accredited organization and context alone should have told you that I was using them as the agent for more rigorous certification of potential gun ownership and usage.  

Great infringement on an enumerated right in the Constitution.

You know it is easy to predict the responses in forums like these.    I offer sponsorship as an example method for systemically reducing the potential for nutcases to purchase firearms and you predictably dismiss it because you see it as making it difficult for people to own firearms (in particular, yourself).   And if I had simply stated that we need to make it harder for nutcases to purchase firearms you, et. al. would complain that I offered a complaint without a solution.

What to do is greatly simplified if one is not married to one side of a false binary situation.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
One glaring problem is that this just-turned-18 year old guy was able to purchase guns and ammo.

I have been thinking about this part of the issue since the story broke , and reading comments elsewhere on the internet .

It falls down to the age of legal adulthood , currently it is in a step by step process. one can be granted the privilege of driving as young as 14 , tobacco use at 18 , drinking 21 . where things get hairy is when it comes what is considered a legal adult when it comes to protected rights . simply changing the age from 18 to 21 for a protected right for adults will and would require a massive rethinking and changing of a number of laws already in existence , and also likely require a couple constitutional amendments to change some already existing amendments .

 Point i am making is either one is a legal adult ( maturity aside ) at a specific age with all rights and privileges protected , or one is a minor in the eyes of the law and society, where all things are considered privileges subject to revocation  .

And that is what i am thinking about currently in regards to this situation  and i do not think whatever the answer is will come easily or without a fight .

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2    one month ago

Legal age does not automatically grant privileges.   Merely turning 16 does not give one the right to step into a car and start driving it.   Similarly, merely turning 18 should not enable one to purchase deadly weapons.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
3.2.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    one month ago

But yet one can vote and serve the country in the armed forces.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2    one month ago

Aww Beto.. he just disrupted the Texas Governor's press conference on the shooting and had an angry exchange with the Lt Governor before being escorted out...

What an ass...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
3.2.4  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.3    one month ago

Total asswipe.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.4    one month ago
Total asswipe.

Yep it just shows you that they have no problem using the tragic murder of children to advance a political agenda... Such a tragedy to them is a political opportunity...

How much clearer can it be...

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
3.2.6  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.3    one month ago
Aww Beto

 Another one of those Democrat "I am Spartacus" Moments.  Moronic Grand Standing just for a Vote from ............. Somebody he doesn't know. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    one month ago

understand your point about driving or privileges, to drive on the roadways one has to follow the laws about getting that privilege, but if they do not drive on the roadways , and stay on their families properties , such as happens often in rural areas , they dont even have to go through the formalities of acquiring a lic .

 Like i said where it gets "hairy " is when it comes to guaranteed protected rights , note there is a difference between what is a right , and what is a privilege , driving is a privilege , owning a gun is a right .

But if an 18 yr old is not mature enough to own a firearm , what quality makes them mature enough to vote? or serve in the military at 18?

 Back when i got married i found out if i were under 21 years of age , i needed parental permission to GET married , BUT the woman i married , could do so when she turned 18 , no parental consent needed , thankfully that law is no longer on the books today , and 18 is the accepted age of majority/ adulthood  pretty much universally across the country .   

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.2.8  afrayedknot  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.7    one month ago

“…that law is no longer on the books today…”

In general terms, perhaps that is the remedy to this crisis. The 2nd amendment is not threatened if one particular type of weapon is banned. No slippery slope, just common sense, to no one’s harm and society’s benefit. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.2.9  Greg Jones  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.8    one month ago

Then another type of weapon will be used

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.3    one month ago
Beto.. he just disrupted the Texas Governor's press conference on the shooting and had an angry exchange with the Lt Governor before being escorted out...

that's the Democrats we've all come to know.  Unprofessional and a complete embarrassment.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3.2.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.8    one month ago
The 2nd amendment is not threatened if one particular type of weapon is banned. No slippery slope, just common sense, to no one’s harm and society’s benefit. 

Sure it is, when you establish that you can ban one weapon you set the precedent that any weapon can be banned...

at that point the 2nd amendment is nothing but words on a paper that is no longer followed..

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.12  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.8    one month ago
In general terms, perhaps that is the remedy to this crisis. The 2nd amendment is not threatened if one particular type of weapon is banned.

well my remedy is even simpler , if a person happens to not like firearms or any particular type of firearm , then dont get one , having the right to have one also includes the right not to have one if one so chooses . 

i personally would not own a full auto, they are expensive both in regulation and feeding them ammunition ., but i wont stop those that do have the desire and the means to legally own one , which is legal if one wants to jump through the governmental hoops of doing so .

It is like if and when i decide to carry , it is NOT there for societies sake , nor for anyone other than my self protection from harm or death , I am under absolutely no legal obligation if i do carry to provide for someone else's protection from harm or death, a person can be getting the snot kicked out of them , i dont have to even though the law allows me to where i live to use my firearm to protect them.

 they have the same choices i do to arm ones self or not , if they didnt , thats on them and have no reasons  to complain they are unprepared or expect me to intervene . 

 im definitely not the so called "good guy with a gun ", but im not the bad guy with one either , and until i become a bad guy , i will continue to do as i do , mind my own business unless there is a threat to me personally .

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    one month ago
Legal age does not automatically grant privileges.

I think you'll find it may.  Hence the phrase "legal" age.

A 16 yr old has the exact same rights regarding a car as any older person.... the right to apply/qualify for a license to drive. 

However driving a car is not a constitutionally enumerated right, so I'm not sure the ideas are quite parallel.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.2.14  Ronin2  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.8    one month ago
The 2nd amendment is not threatened if one particular type of weapon is banned. No slippery slope, just common sense, to no one’s harm and society’s benefit. 

You still have to specify which firearms are banned. What specifically makes a firearm illegal to own? Good luck with that. Infringing on an enumerated right isn't going to go over well with law abiding gun owners.

Also, what are you going to do with all the firearms that are now deemed illegal that are already owned legally?

  • Force all gun owners to turn in their now illegal weapons? Are you going to compensate gun owners for the weapons they turn in? How much?
  • Or will you grand father those weapons in; which will leave how many on the street?
  • How are you going to ensure that all are turned in? Do mandatory house to house searches? Pay neighbors, relatives, and friends to turn people in?
  • What about criminals? Think they are going to follow this new law? They aren't even enforcing the gun laws on the books; what will make this one any different for criminals.
  • Are you going to ban all manufacturing of these weapons in the US? If not, you just created a great reverse gun running market into the US from Mexico and South America.
  • What about 3D printers that owners can recreate parts for an entire weapon from? How are you going to stop in the information that is already out there from being used?
  • What about those handy and capable enough to use metal working tools to fabricate a gun?

I have no problem restricting individuals from owning guns that only have military usage. Anything beyond that and you are in for a fight. Chances are I own a gun or two that would definitely be on your list. I will not give up my right to own a firearm because a bunch of people are afraid of an inanimate object that cannot harm anyone on it's own. It takes someone to point, aim, and fire a gun. That is what laws should be aimed at. Keeping criminals, terrorists, and people with severe mental problems (that are a danger to themselves and others) from getting them.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.2.15  afrayedknot  replied to  Nowhere Man @3.2.11    one month ago

“…you can ban one weapon…”

How ‘bout I want a bazooka and perhaps a tank to attach my requisite bumper sticker? Of course we can ban certain weapons that serve no useful civilian purpose, and it is time to at least have that debate as it has been demonstrated time and time and time again the weapon of choice. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.15    one month ago
How ‘bout I want a bazooka and perhaps a tank

actually , one can legally buy both, now ammo for them falls into a different category and story, just like one can buy and own a cannon ,but keeping it fed is expensive.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.17  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.14    one month ago

gun owners are always the worst damn sailors , they always seem to be having "tragic " boating accidents with their guns on board .........

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
3.2.18  afrayedknot  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.16    one month ago

“…one can legally buy both…”

Well, that is a perfect reason for common sense legislation to ban, restrict and strictly regulate certain types of weaponry from civilian use. 

And thanks for the civil discussion. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @3.2.14    one month ago
Good luck with that. Infringing on an enumerated right isn't going to go over well with law abiding gun owners.

Which doesn't matter one iota.  

It's not going to go over well with the Supreme Court, which is what matters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.2    one month ago

That is correct Jim.  

Now, are you saying that because one can serve in the armed forces at age 18 that merely turning 18 entitles them to all rights and privileges?

If an 18 has never registered and passed driving tests should the individual be allowed to drive simply because they are 18?

After all, using your logic, if someone is old enough to serve they should be able to drive a vehicle simply by virtue of being 'old enough'.

Note also that your example ignores the fact that an 18 year old must be accepted by the armed forces, undergo training, etc. before being given the right to operate weapons in combat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.7    one month ago
But if an 18 yr old is not mature enough to own a firearm , what quality makes them mature enough to vote? or serve in the military at 18?

That is not the point.   I am talking about certain privileges that are enabled by an age (a rough gauge of responsibility) but are then allowed by virtue of certification.   

Succinctly, I am in favor of more rigorous certification before anyone can legally purchase / use firearms.  

This nutcase was able to purchase multiple guns because he was 18 and because he had nothing on his record to cause a flag during the background check.   Clearly we need to do better and that means being more rigorous; do more than simply check for police records.   That is why I like the sponsorship idea.   If a certified gun owner must put his/her reputation and standing on the line by sponsoring someone, the people who likely best know these potential new gun owners are part of the solution.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.13    one month ago
I think you'll find it may.  Hence the phrase "legal" age.

Legal age to drive a car is 16 (typically).   That means the right to attempt to get licensed.   It does not mean the right to get into a car and drive.

That is what I wrote and that is what I meant.

However driving a car is not a constitutionally enumerated right, so I'm not sure the ideas are quite parallel.

Jack, I am certain you understood my point.    Do you agree that merely turning 18 should NOT give you the right to just buy a gun?    Certainly you do.   And you will point out that our system does include background checks.   So there is the condition in addition to age that already exists.

Now, given we presumably agree that it is important to have more than legal age to ensure the wrong people cannot legally buy / operate firearms, my suggestion is that the current system is insufficient.   That the background checks are inadequate and that other measures should be employed (e.g. sponsorship, certification by an accredited / licensed organization).

And, in anticipation, I fully recognize the other dimensions of the problem (e.g. black-market firearms, stealing legal firearms, etc.) which ALSO need to be better addressed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.23  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.22    one month ago
Legal age to drive a car is 16 (typically).   That means the right to attempt to get licensed.   It does not mean the right to get into a car and drive.

Ignoring the point that nobody at any age has the right to simply "get into a car and drive".  A 16 year old has the same rights as everyone else "of legal age", hence the term.

Jack, I am certain you understood my point.

Of course.  Just as I am certain you understand there are holes in your illustration.

    Do you agree that merely turning 18 should NOT give you the right to just buy a gun?    Certainly you do.

Why would you presume that?  The Constitution specifically states that American citizens have the right to bear arms.  Statistically, 18-year-olds are far more dangerous behind the wheel than they are behind the trigger, so I'm not sure what grounds we have for some arbitrary delay of their rights.  

Now, given we presumably agree that it is important to have more than legal age to ensure the wrong people cannot legally buy / operate firearms, my suggestion is that the current system is insufficient.

I'm open to ideas on that.  However all too often the most fervently supported ideas don't make much sense from a statistical perspective.  

 That the background checks are inadequate and that other measures should be employed (e.g. sponsorship, certification by an accredited / licensed organization).

I think you could probably get some traction on replacing the current background check system with a licensing system, provided the qualifications for that license were empirical, non-subjective, and reasonably achievable.

And, in anticipation, I fully recognize the other dimensions of the problem (e.g. black-market firearms, stealing legal firearms, etc.) which ALSO need to be better addressed.

Realistically, I'm just incredibly skeptical about any movement on that front.   We're simply not willing to do what it takes.  We're not even willing to talk about doing what it would take. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.24  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    one month ago
I am talking about certain privileges that are enabled by an age

See your talking about the ability to purchase and own a gun like it is a privilege , its not a privilege its a right for all adults if they choose to exersize it , trying to turn it into a privilege by requiring certification , sponsorship multiple checks on abiding the law or mental health , still does not negate that it is still a right afforded to citizens of this country .  isnt that one of the reasons the state of NY is facing the USSC? because they decided to follow a MAY issue plan of attack to licensing , rather than the shall issue . the difference with those 2 things is a shall issue simply means that the individual has nothing on their record that has been reported that would preclude them having said lic , the may issue means the individual has to satisfy some state made up idea of why they should have the lic , which can become almost impossible to pass or qualify for . In NY case one has to prove a need for the lic and even then the state can deny it .

and making it sound like there is no baseline requirements to be met also shows a disingenuous motive to further make the populous un armed and able to exercise the right of self protection , and be at the whims and mercy of if not the government , but the actual crazy and criminals themselves . 

 come up with some laws that deal with those two and only those two and ill listen , but when it starts to stray into infringement of those that are not either of those two groups , you will lose hands down all day and all the time .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.25  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.23    one month ago
Ignoring the point that nobody at any age has the right to simply "get into a car and drive".  A 16 year old has the same rights as everyone else "of legal age", hence the term.

You are then ignoring the actual point.    The right to try to get a license was never questioned.

Just as I am certain you understand there are holes in your illustration.

One can find nit-picky holes in any analogy or example.   Looking for holes in an analogy rather than accept the analogy as a means of helping express a point dodges the actual point made.

Why would you presume that? 

Because I am confident that you know simply turning 18 does not give anyone the right to buy a gun.   I presume you know (especially since I mentioned this in my post) that there are extant requirements that need to be met per background checks and that you agree with the principle of these checks.   At the very least.  Did I presume incorrectly?

I think you could probably get some traction on replacing the current background check system with a licensing system, provided the qualifications for that license were empirical, non-subjective, and reasonably achievable.

One would hope that anyone thinking objectively would be in favor of improving our extant system.   When irresponsible legal gun owners engage in acts like this it causes harm to the super-super majority of responsible legal gun owners.   To wit, responsible gun owners logically should be in favor of filtering out those who would be irresponsible.

Realistically, I'm just incredibly skeptical about any movement on that front. 

I share your skepticism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.24    one month ago
See your talking about the ability to purchase and own a gun like it is a privilege ,

The ability to purchase a gun is not a right.   If you do not pass background checks, you are denied the ability to purchase.   The right is the ability to attempt to purchase.

... trying to turn it into a privilege by requiring certification ...

I am trying to pose sensible ways to mitigate a deadly problem.

... and making it sound like there is no baseline requirements to be met also shows a disingenuous motive to further make the populous un armed...

Where did this come from?   You are really stretching with your presumption.   I have not argued or even implied that.    Stick with what I actually write.


Mark, the gun issue is similar to the abortion issue.   People tend to view both as binary issues and thus lose all the potential solutions that are not strictly pro-gun / anti-gun.   Binary thinking greatly impedes rational analysis.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.27  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.25    one month ago
The right to try to get a license was never questioned.

No, we disagreed on the definition of the term "legal age".  I think we still do.

Because I am confident that you know simply turning 18 does not give anyone the right to buy a gun.

But under current law it does in many cases.  Background checks are not generally required for private sales, but several states do prohibit private sales to minors. 

So you have the right to buy your neighbor's shotgun...without a background check... as soon as you reach the "legal age" of 18. 

Now, whether that should be the case or not is a matter of opinion. 

One would hope that anyone thinking objectively would be in favor of improving our extant system.

Probably.  But I think you'll find there is fervent disagreement on what constitutes "improvement".

When irresponsible legal gun owners engage in acts like this it causes harm to the super-super majority of responsible legal gun owners.   To wit, responsible gun owners logically should be in favor of filtering out those who would be irresponsible.

I'm not a gun owner, but living in Texas I know hundreds of responsible gun owners pretty well, so I can tell you what they've said to me.

They are very much in favor of making society safer, and filtering out those who should never own a gun.  But they absolutely do not trust the US Govt's ability to do this.

They generally do not trust the left-leaning politicians drafting any gun regulation.  They generally suspect that those left-leaning politicians will view any regulation as merely a first step toward a total ban. There is no shortage of far-left rhetoric to justify their fears. 

They suspect that if a federal licensing process is established, liberals will gradually make the requirements so strict that nobody but their own armed guards can qualify.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.27    one month ago
But under current law it does in many cases.  Background checks are not generally required for private sales, but several states do prohibit private sales to minors. 

First, the case in point is the purchase of a firearm from a licensed seller.   Second, the fact that there are legal ways to buy a firearm from unlicensed sellers does not change the fact that merely reaching age 18 does not, in itself, give one the right to legally buy a firearm.   If one could buy a firearm simply because they reached age 18 then any other conditions imposed by law would violate that right.   But other legal conditions do exist (albeit not always) and when they exist they do not violate the rights of the individual.   Any state that allows private sale without background checks could at any time impose background checks without violating the rights of the individuals.

As with a driver's license, one does not have the right to step into a car and legally drive simply by turning 16.   The right to drive is a combination of age + meeting legal requirements (i.e. passing tests to be given a driver's license).   It is not simply a right achieved by age.

But I think you'll find there is fervent disagreement on what constitutes "improvement".

Of course.

They are very much in favor of making society safer, and filtering out those who should never own a gun.  But they absolutely do not trust the US Govt's ability to do this.

Enter my suggestion on sponsorship.   My brother is a big-time gun owner; has been all his life.   He and his fellow enthusiasts are adamant about gun safety and I know how much it irritates my brother when irresponsible gun owners make the news.   Irresponsible gun owners make life more difficult for the super majority who are responsible (beyond the fact that the irresponsible ones kill people).  

And I know he does not trust the government.   But ultimately government will be involved in any legal solution; I see no alternative.   If sponsorship was active, responsible gun-owners would have a legal means to assert rather strong influence on who can buy guns.   Their reputations are on the line but they have a real means to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not purchase guns.   Imperfect as will be all 'solutions', but quite likely an improvement.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.29  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.2.26    one month ago
the gun issue is similar to the abortion issue.

and i do treat both issues the same , those that do not wish a gun or abortion are free to not have one , those that do are free to do as they see fit , i have no right or power to dictate to others what they should do and others have no right to dictate those things to me , without my consent . and absent my consent the masses ( usually the M is silent on both issues ) , can go fuck themselves , i am not giving up shit , as an ancestor once told some british dude back in the 1700s . they tried  to confiscate and lost .

 my suggestion ? want to lower gun violence , then dont own a gun, you can do your own little part . , but the masses can go fuck themselves .

 the things needed are consideration , im listening , but disagree on many points 

 co-operation , wont be getting that from me and many others no matter what the masses demand 

Consent , the masses wont be getting or taking permission 

 and compliance , will the real problem the criminals and the crazies be complying as well? if not , the issue is dead .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.29    one month ago

Guns and abortion are similar (as I described) in that they are treated as binary issues.   One extreme vs. another.

my suggestion ? want to lower gun violence , then dont own a gun, you can do your own little part . , but the masses can go fuck themselves .

Most people (by a super majority) who own guns are not contributing to gun violence.   The problem is not the owning of guns by the masses but rather the possession of guns by nutcases who are still mixing with the public.

Mitigating the possession of guns by nutcases is part of the solution.   The other part is to find a way to reduce the number of nutcases at large.   Neither has an obvious, perfect solution but clearly we need to do much better on both counts.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
3.2.31  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.2.30    one month ago
The problem is not the owning of guns by the masses but rather the possession of guns by nutcases who are still mixing with the public.

as  i said , with compliance , come up with something that does not affect or cost what you call the super majority  of the gun owners anything but controls the criminals and nutbags , and maybe more people will give it consideration , until then , dead issue .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.32  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.2.31    one month ago

I doubt there is a solution that will not affect the super majority.   That is like asking for a way to secure internet access without affecting users;  not possible ... we all must deal with passwords, verification protocols, etc. because of the relatively few assholes.    So if you are right, those who oppose all solutions that pose an inconvenience to them personally are enabling this to continue.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.33  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.28    one month ago
First, the case in point is the purchase of a firearm from a licensed seller.

Why would it be limited to that?  

   Second, the fact that there are legal ways to buy a firearm from unlicensed sellers does not change the fact that merely reaching age 18 does not, in itself, give one the right to legally buy a firearm. 

In some states that's exactly what it means.  In Texas (for example) when you turn 18, you can buy a gun from a private seller.  No further conditions required.  Ergo, you have the legal right to buy a firearm.  

If one could buy a firearm simply because they reached age 18 then any other conditions imposed by law would violate that right.

That's not how laws work. 

Every law ever passed represents some level of reduction or elimination of some right.  Even laws that guarantee rights also necessarily remove the right of some opposing party to engage in whatever behavior is deemed to be denying the guaranteed right. 

The First Amendment removes the right of government officials to shut us up.  The 14th Amendment removes the right of the local sheriff to organize a lynching. 

Speed limits eliminate my right to drive 120mph.  Other laws eliminate the right to do everything from shooting somebody who embezzled money to burning suspected witches at the stake to conducting a Viking invasion of your neighbor's house and claiming it and his wife as your spoils of war.

Whether or not you ever intended to do any of those things, you no longer have the right to do them, because we have laws against it.  Those rights were not violated, they were removed for the sake of the common good of society.  There is a gargantuan difference.

Any state that allows private sale without background checks could at any time impose background checks without violating the rights of the individuals.

Correct.  Changing the law does not violate the rights of any individual.... unless those rights are guaranteed by a higher law and the new law represents an unacceptable level of contradiction.  That's where gun laws must navigate a large swathe of grey area.

Enter my suggestion on sponsorship.

That's actually an intriguing idea.  I'm not sure how it could work legally, but it's interesting to consider.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.33    one month ago
Every law ever passed represents some level of reduction or elimination of some right. 

The determination of what is a 'constitutional right' is based on legal precedent.   The 2nd amendment expresses the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  If one were to take this literally (i.e. unconditionally), that would mean any individual who qualifies as part of 'the people' has the constitutional right to keep and bear anything that falls under the category of 'Arms'.  It also means that an infant, a mentally retarded person, a felon, etc. has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of any kind.   

( Interestingly, as an aside, there is no mention of the right to purchase Arms;  that is an interpretation too. )

Any attempt to infringe upon this right would be unconstitutional.   Clearly that is NOT how the CotUS is (ever) executed.

We know the CotUS uses general language that is often vague (arguably by intent);  the adjudicated meaning of the CotUS is always expressed in law and subject to legal precedent.    By legal precedent, Constitutional rights are NOT interpreted to be unconditional.  

The adjudicated second amendment, in particular, does not grant to everyone the unconditional right to purchase, keep or carry any weapon that falls under the category of 'Arms'.   Extant law does not grant to 18 and older a national unconditional right to purchase firearms.   If it were an adjudicated constitutional right to purchase firearms merely by turning 18 then any condition imposed on the purchase of firearms would be ipso facto unconstitutional.

There is no national right to purchase firearms merely because one is 18 or older.

In the USA, today, turning 18 gives one the legal right to attempt to purchase firearms.  (That is, under 18 you are nationally categorically barred from attempting to purchase firearms under any condition.)   In your example, turning 18 must be coupled with 'purchasing from a private seller in Texas (and similar states)'.    In most cases, turning 18 is coupled with 'pass background checks'.   There is no national right to purchase firearms merely because one is 18 or older.

To wit, if turning 18 granted an unconditional legal right to purchase a firearm then any imposed condition would be illegal.   Using your example, every jurisdiction would have to operate as if it sales were from a private seller in Texas (et. al.).   Clearly that is not the case.

That's actually an intriguing idea.  I'm not sure how it could work legally, but it's interesting to consider.

I am not sure we can effectively deal with this problem without the boots on the ground pitching in.


Net net:    What national rights are gained wrto purchasing firearms merely by turning 18;  what new rights does an 18 yr old have that they did not have at 17 and younger?

My answer is that they gain the national right to attempt to purchase a firearm.   At 17, they had no such right.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
4  charger 383    one month ago

Nothing about Father in article and mother had lot of problems.  Did his mother want to have a child?  

People having children they don't want and can't properly raise seems to be the cause 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
4.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  charger 383 @4    one month ago

And single mom drug abusers usually, in some cases, have multiple revolving door relationships with men.

I posted an article that explained one of their neighbors took the boy in as a friend and invited him over on multiple occasions for cookouts and sleepovers with the man's son.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @4    one month ago
Did his mother want to have a child?  

Apparently, no one has asked her.  Do you think that she will remember what she thought 18 1/2 years ago?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
4.2.1  charger 383  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.2    one month ago

Maybe she should have had option to not have a child then,  Problems would not have happened.  

An ounce of prevention prevents pounds of problems 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  charger 383 @4.2.1    one month ago
Maybe she should have had option to not have a child then, 

She did have that option.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
4.2.3  charger 383  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.2.2    one month ago

should have used it

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
5  1stwarrior    one month ago

And why has this question not been addressed - why shoot up an elementary school with children?  They weren't the ones causing his issues - it was the middle school/high school kids - and everybody knows how that can go.  Did he go there because of the traditional "walk-through" by the soon-to-be high school graduates?  After all, they "caused" much of his problem causing his discontent.

Why an elementary school?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Quiet
5.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  1stwarrior @5    one month ago
Why an elementary school?

Sadly 1st I think it was because the chances of anyone fighting back was minimalized .. 'he' was incapable of taking on his peers, 'he' already knew what they thought of him .. ultimately fear chose the path of least resistance and maximum damage .... dude was fuck'd in the head .. truly all one can do is speculate, there certainly is no logic to be extrapolated  from his actions  ..

Peace 1st .. it is good to see you

 
 

Who is online




38 visitors