FBI Knew Boulder, Colorado, Suspect Identity Prior to Shooting

Damocles said:
I don't normally engage with you, because I find you to be dishonest and disingenuous. But I guess I am willing to take the chance again. You stated here that the family could do nothing, but that is simply false.

The family or law enforcement can act on this law. The reality is there was a method, one that you and Governor Polis propound, that of "red flag laws".

The reality is there is a method in place currently that could have stopped this, but the FBI didn't act, the brother of the shooter didn't act, nobody that should have acted. I presented earlier that the "send LE in to take guns" method should be replaced with get this guy into a hospital and get him help (take the man from the environment where he is a danger rather than try to take guns from an armed unstable man), you "answered" with a disingenuous, and rather unintelligent, thread about how mental instability could not possibly be the cause of such activity. A disarmed unstable man can still cause a crapton of death and destruction. Pretending that guns are the only method of danger from an unstable individual is just that... pretense.

This will likely be my only response to you (as I said I find you dishonest and incapable of an actual conversation), but I thought it necessary to correct your stupid assertion that the family could do nothing.
Click to expand...

He took money went to a gun shop and bought a weapon and ammo.
How about buyers' background being checked? That could have stopped the gun purchase.70 percent of Americans want background checks. It is not a 100 percent method, but we have to do something. Another 10 families are rethinking gun rights now.
 
Damocles said:
The reality is there is a method in place currently that could have stopped this, but the FBI didn't act, the brother of the shooter didn't act, nobody that should have acted.
Click to expand...

Obviously the method in place is ineffective if it wasn't exercised in this case.

So you need to go back to the drawing board.

The one constant in all of this? The gun.


I presented earlier that the "send LE in to take guns" method should be replaced with get this guy into a hospital and get him help (take the man from the environment where he is a danger rather than try to take guns from an armed unstable man)
Click to expand...

But that only works if the guy goes along with getting treatment...otherwise, you're forcibly committing someone against their will.

How do we even know someone is a danger if they haven't exhibited these warnings?

You seem to be leading yourself to mandatory mental health screenings for every gun owner and prospective gun owner...that's where this conversation is heading.
 
Damocles said:
you "answered" with a disingenuous, and rather unintelligent, thread about how mental instability could not possibly be the cause of such activity.
Click to expand...

If mental illness is the cause, then the solution is mandatory, annual, recurring mental health screenings for every single gun owner in the US.

That is the only way we can determine who should have a gun and who shouldn't.

So do you support that?
 
Damocles said:
A disarmed unstable man can still cause a crapton of death and destruction
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's not as easy as shooting up a crowd, is it? He has to take on added risk to himself if he, say, tries to build a bomb or something.

When someone kills 60 people in 60 seconds with a knife, then I'll be happy to talk about knife control.

And BTW - because of previous bombings, the FBI now investigates things like large fertilizer purchases. There was even an X-Files joke about it, where Mulder was being "punished" by investigating large manure purchases because of McVeigh. So there has been previous action taken by the FBI to prevent mass murder from bombings, and I could be wrong, but I don't think we've had a mass murder by bombing since the Boston Marathon 8 years ago. But we have had hundreds of mass shooting since then.
 
Nordberg said:
He took money went to a gun shop and bought a weapon and ammo.
How about buyers' background being checked? That could have stopped the gun purchase.70 percent of Americans want background checks. It is not a 100 percent method, but we have to do something. Another 10 families are rethinking gun rights now.
Click to expand...

His background was checked, all purchases in Colorado are even the supposed "loopholes" because every purchase is required to have a background check even direct sales.. and if the ERPO law was followed he would be flagged and unable to purchase the weapon. (for 364 days). Of course that does nothing for other weapons he owns, nor does it stop him from simply driving through a crowd. Unstable folks can do some things we find to be a bit crazy, there is a reason we call them unstable.
 
Damocles said:
Pretending that guns are the only method of danger from an unstable individual is just that... pretense.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending that, it's just that guns are currently the predominant method by which crazy people commit mass murder.

Guns are also the most effective way for someone to commit suicide, and about half of all gun deaths are suicides.

So if there were mental health screenings in place for gun owners, they would probably be able to stop many of those 15,000 annual gun suicides.

And as far as method goes, I'm glad you brought that up because when it comes to guns, there is no more effective way to kill yourself or others, and we can see that clearly in the fact that suicide attempts by gun are 85% lethal vs. suicide attempts by drugs which are 3% lethal.

So if you say that someone who wants to kill themselves will just find another way without a gun, and that those other ways are a fraction as lethal as they are with guns, then wouldn't that same principle also apply to someone who is seeking to cause a mass casualty event?
 
Damocles said:
This will likely be my only response to you (as I said I find you dishonest and incapable of an actual conversation), but I thought it necessary to correct your stupid assertion that the family could do nothing.
Click to expand...

You're lying about what I said either because you didn't carefully read it, or you act in bad faith.

What I said was that sure, family members could do that, but they're not compelled to by anything, and it's not really their responsibility.

You are not responsible for your adult relatives, whether or not they are diagnosed with a mental illness, so pinning the responsibility for mass shootings on the family is a convenient way to avoid addressing the ease with which the killer got the gun in the first place.
 
Nordberg said:
He took money went to a gun shop and bought a weapon and ammo.
How about buyers' background being checked? That could have stopped the gun purchase.70 percent of Americans want background checks. It is not a 100 percent method, but we have to do something. Another 10 families are rethinking gun rights now.
Click to expand...

But since he had no diagnosed mental illness, there's no way a background check would have revealed that.

That's why he needed to go through the psych exam before getting the gun, not after he was already caught.
 
LV426 said:
If mental illness is the cause, then the solution is mandatory, annual, recurring mental health screenings for every single gun owner in the US.

That is the only way we can determine who should have a gun and who shouldn't.

So do you support that?
Click to expand...

MOVE! Who pays for said screenings the Government, great more taxes on the citizens! Since I can do nothing about abortion Being legal, I will use one of the liberals phrases!!! IF YOU DON'T WANT A GUN, DON'T BUY ONE!
 
Damocles said:
His background was checked, all purchases in Colorado are even the supposed "loopholes" because every purchase is required to have a background check even direct sales.. and if the ERPO law was followed he would be flagged and unable to purchase the weapon. (for 364 days). Of course that does nothing for other weapons he owns, nor does it stop him from simply driving through a crowd. Unstable folks can do some things we find to be a bit crazy, there is a reason we call them unstable.
Click to expand...

The only way a background check would have identified his mental illness is if he had already been committed or treated for mental illness before, which he wasn't.

So the BC has no way of revealing mental illness if it's undiagnosed.

That's why you should support mandatory pre-screenings and mandatory annual screenings of every gun owner in the US.

The inevitable result of that is that some people will lose their weapons.
 
LV426 said:
You're lying about what I said either because you didn't carefully read it, or you act in bad faith.

What I said was that sure, family members could do that, but they're not compelled to by anything, and it's not really their responsibility.

You are not responsible for your adult relatives, whether or not they are diagnosed with a mental illness, so pinning the responsibility for mass shootings on the family is a convenient way to avoid addressing the ease with which the killer got the gun in the first place.
Click to expand...

Why if he was being watched by the FBI was he allowed to buy a weapon! I will tell you soon, but will let you figure it out for yourself first!
 
LV426 said:
The only way a background check would have identified his mental illness is if he had already been committed or treated for mental illness before, which he wasn't.

So the BC has no way of revealing mental illness if it's undiagnosed.

That's why you should support mandatory pre-screenings and mandatory annual screenings of every gun owner in the US.

The inevitable result of that is that some people will lose their weapons.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, if the ERPO law was followed it would have been prevalent on the background check. This is a law you propound and support. It is interesting to watch you twist and squirm. Just the other day you were supporting red flag laws, now... magically you find that it is a bad thing. And because I brought up the law you pretend that it has my support in some way.

This is the law the left wants passed, how do I know? Because the left passed it. Unfortunately, the folks that should have brought it up to protect others, didn't.
 
Wolverine said:
Who pays for said screenings the Government, great more taxes on the citizens!
Click to expand...

Who pays for the background check right now?

I imagine these screenings would be run by Medicare or SSDI, since SSDI handles mental health screenings for people seeking to get disability, and Medicare provides for mental health screenings already.



Since I can do nothing about abortion Being legal, I will use one of the liberals phrases!!! IF YOU DON'T WANT A GUN, DON'T BUY ONE!
Click to expand...

The problem is that when YOU buy a gun, there's a likely chance that gun will be stolen at some point, and when it is stolen, there's a 10% chance that you won't even tell the cops.

Also, you are far more likely to harm yourself or others with your gun than you will ever use it in self-defense, and that is a fact of gun death statistics...about 65% of all gun deaths in this country are either suicides or accidents....which means the remaining 35% of gun deaths are either homicides or self-defense.

So statistically speaking, you are more likely to kill yourself or kill someone else by accident with your gun than you will ever use that gun in self-defense.
 
LV426 said:
But since he had no diagnosed mental illness, there's no way a background check would have revealed that.

.
Click to expand...

FBI knew of him and could have flagged him! Put him under surveillance etc

my god they sent 12 agents to investigate a rope hanging in a NASCAR garage ... they could have watched a Muslim ISIS nut after he bought the gun with his stim check
 
Damocles said:
Incorrect, if the ERPO law was followed it would have been prevalent on the background check.
Click to expand...

NO!

Your family members cannot diagnose you as mentally ill.

The only way to be diagnosed with a mental illness is to undergo an examination.

The family telling law enforcement that they think their relative is dangerous, despite being unfair to the family who is not responsible for adult relatives, doesn't do anything...and unless he's been committed and treated, there's nothing to indicate that in a background check.


This is a law you propound and support.
Click to expand...

When have I ever supported this stupid law?

Never.

It's not even CLOSE to what I "propound"(?) and "support".

I "propound" and support mandatory mental health pre-screenings, which is NOT what ERPO is, and you can look at any of my posts on this subject to see that.

Unlike you all, I have been remarkably consistent in my position.
 
LV426 said:
Who pays for the background check right now?

I imagine these screenings would be run by Medicare or SSDI, since SSDI handles mental health screenings for people seeking to get disability, and Medicare provides for mental health screenings already.





The problem is that when YOU buy a gun, there's a likely chance that gun will be stolen at some point, and when it is stolen, there's a 10% chance that you won't even tell the cops.

Also, you are far more likely to harm yourself or others with your gun than you will ever use it in self-defense, and that is a fact of gun death statistics...about 65% of all gun deaths in this country are either suicides or accidents....which means the remaining 35% of gun deaths are either homicides or self-defense.

So statistically speaking, you are more likely to kill yourself or kill someone else by accident with your gun than you will ever use that gun in self-defense.
Click to expand...

I do, I will not pay for your stupid ass screenings, it is against my 2nd amendment rights!
So you agree this will get passed to taxpayers, no thank you!
Not a chance in hell those who are gun enthusiasts get their gats stolen! No one will steal mine, poor argument!

Suicide yes, accidents are how much of the 65%, I guarantee it's very low!

My weapon only comes out at the range, at home to clean, or in case of intrusion, try again! It is only loaded when at the range and after cleaning and then nothing in the chamber till needed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top