CDZ A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message

[M14 Shooter]

Why should it,if anything it proves how dangerous life can be.
Gun crazies want to disarm the people.what kind of logic is that?

Yes, taking guns from law abiding citizens is like targeting the drug war on people who don't do drugs and drunk driving programs on people who don't drink. Fact and logic, liberals take to them like fish take to cameras and fire flies

But in order to keep drugs from addicts, doctors have severely limited pain prescriptions to ALL patients. And doctors and pharmacies share pain prescription information on all patients to catch those abusing them. And to limit drunk drivers, all drivers can be stopped and tested, bars can be held liable for serving to someone already three sheets to the wind, regardless of whether they're driving. To limit gun violence, perhaps guns need to be limited for all. Fair? Maybe not. Who told you life is fair? I said limited, not completely gone, btw.

It IS limited.
The fact that there are mountains of gun control laws on the books seems to be utterly ignored every time gun control is brought up.

300 million guns is not limited, imo.

Oh... your opinion. That's convincing.

For every gun used to commit a murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your conclusion: We need more gun control!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you're right, Marty, you wouldn't want to trust ME about stopping at "limited." I'd like to go Australia on you folks. But semiautomatic weapons and replaceable magazines will be a suitable compromise

Compromise?
You don't want a compromise, and you know it.

 

[320 Years of History]

That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.

"Bad actor?" What was the man convicted of? I haven't heard he was convicted of any crime. Have you?

He was dismissed form the Army for being a sexual pervert, and a general bunghole..

"Pentagon records do not reveal the reason for Johnson's Army discharge in April 2015. But a military lawyer who represented him said Johnson had been accused of sexually harassing a female soldier and had to leave the service. Bradford Glendening, a military attorney who practices near Fort Hood, said that the Army sent Johnson home from Afghanistan, which was unusual. Discipline for sexual harassment is typically counseling, he said.

"He was very much disliked by his command, that was clear," Glendening said.

The woman asked that Johnson receive "mental help" and asked for a protective order for herself and her family, Glendening said, adding that he wasn't sure which type of discharge Johnson ultimately received."

Ousted from Army, Dallas shooter used military skills for murder

The newspaper article opens with two speculations:

"Maybe it was the run-in with police in Richardson a year ago, after someone reported that he looked suspicious sitting in a parked Chevy Tahoe at a strip mall. "

"Maybe it was his encounter with a famous black-power activist this spring. Or his attendance at a film festival focused on Malcolm X, the charismatic black leader assassinated in 1965. "
​

Really? Speculation is how the DMN begins what's ostensibly a "hard news" story? Conjecture and reflection on the part of the story writer/news editor is the stuff of editorials not hard news. It's bad enough that the conjecture exists in the article at all, but that the article opens with it rather than with the standard "who, what, when, where and how" factual information that has been gathered is a pretty clear indication of the tone the paper aims to set.

Don't get me wrong, papers do this all the time, but never is it the right thing to do in a news piece. If the tone is favorable, we call it a "puff piece," and when the tone is negative, it's a "hatchet job." It clear to me the paper aims to cast Johnson not as he was, but rather as they want him to appear. To get a sense of what I mean, check out the Associated Press' approach to reporting the story. (AP's story was picked up and printed in the Boston Globe. Scroll down and you'll find a link to it.)

Buried in the middle is:

"Friends and acquaintances described the 25-year-old as a nice guy who in recent years cared for a younger brother. But they also say he had an obsession with heavy-duty weaponry and an interest in the military that dates at least to his senior year in high school. "

"Just fragments of Johnson's life have become public, and it is too soon to get a clear picture."

"The news will say what they think, but those that knew him know this wasn't like him."

"N'Kia Johnson-Williams, who took several classes with him, said he was very smart and not political. At a school with a diverse student body of blacks, whites and Asian-Americans, she said, 'I'd never known him to pick particular sides with race,' adding that his stepmother was white."

"The month after he was discharged, Richardson police received a 'suspicious person' report near a strip mall along Greenville Avenue. The caller, whose name was redacted from police records, reported a black 2006 Tahoe with four males inside sitting behind the mall for 20 or 30 minutes before pulling up out front."

"Two Richardson police officers arrived and found Johnson inside the Tahoe. He told them he'd just gotten out of a martial-arts class 'and was waiting for his dad to arrive' to pick up his brother, the report says."​

From the Daily Beast:

"Johnson received an honorable discharge and remained a member of the ready reserve."
​

The court of public opinion doesn't have to adhere to high standards of objectivity, but the fact is Johnson received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army. Why would that have happened as a consequence of a validly sexual harassment offense? Why would the Army not have sent him packing with either a general discharge or a "other than honorable discharge?" "Honorable discharge" and discharged from the Army for being a "bad actor, sexual pervert and/or general bunghole" don't go together in my mind. Something material in that story line is missing. I don't know what is missing, but I know something is.

According to the Boston Globe:

The suspected gunman in the Dallas massacre was expected to be kicked out of the Army after being accused of sexual harassment but was instead given an honorable discharge, according to the military lawyer who represented him.....

....According to a court filing Glendening read over the phone Friday, the victim said she wanted Johnson to ‘‘receive mental help,’’ while also seeking a protective order to keep him away from her and her family, wherever they went. Johnson was ordered to avoid all contact with her.

Glendening said Johnson was set to be removed from the Army in September 2014 because of the incident, but instead got an honorable discharge months later — for reasons he can’t understand....

...In his case, it was apparently so egregious, it was not just the act itself,’’ Glendening said. ‘‘I’m sure that this guy was the black sheep of his unit.
​

Some questions in my mind, ones for which I have no answer:

• What went on such that Johnson went from "set to be removed from the Army" because of sexual harassment to honorably discharged?
• Just how "on the ball" or involved was this lawyer who represented Johnson? The man described Johnson's actions as "apparently so egregious." That's odd.
  • Why did the lawyer, a "wordsmith," express a degree of uncertainty rather than stating the nature of Johnson's acts without the doubt interjected by saying "apparently?" That's a word one uses when things seem clear but one perceives that something is missing. It's not necessarily a lot of doubt, but it's some doubt rather than the absence of doubt.
  • How does that lawyer not know the details of the charge and its resolution well enough to not have to say "apparently?" I don't know. I read that Johnson left the Army as an E-3 and is from a working class family, so I'm guessing he didn't purchase "the best lawyer money could buy."
  • Did he actually defend Johnson in his hearing/trial or was he just there to "hold his hand?" Was he a representative/liaison of sorts, who happens to be an attorney, more so than functioning as the attorney who legally represented Johnson as his lawyer in the case?
  • Why did the lawyer disclose anything about Johnson and his case? Attorney-client privilege endures after the client's death. Did the bar association or a court order the disclosure? Based solely on what I've read of the attorney's remarks, I certainly wouldn't hire or recommend him to anyone. The idea that my attorney would ever have, outside of a courtroom or legal filing, anything to say short of "no comment" about me my matters is totally unacceptable to me.
  • By what right does Johnson's attorney have any place asserting that "someone really screwed up?" Some advocate he was....
• What does the sexual harassment charge, apparently one for which he wasn't convicted given his discharge status, have to do with the shooting? A thief is not necessarily a murderer or rapist too, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, while I see Johnson's acts as vehemently deplorable, I also think the reporting about Johnson's character are incomplete and the press, in a rush to publish whatever they can, have failed to comprehensively and objectively report the full picture of multiple dimensions of the man who Johnson was. That's not as bad as shooting five people, but in consideration of what we rely on the press for, it's quite bad.

 

[Fishlore]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And it is for the most part. The fact that third world imports are committing the majority of these horrible crimes seems to escape you. 80% of all violent crime is committed by illegal gangs. Gangs that are well known to police. Why do the powers that be allow them to run rampant?

Riddle us that batman...

That 80% statistic has been debunked all over the web. Post the link where you got it and I'll debunk it for you

 

[westwall]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And it is for the most part. The fact that third world imports are committing the majority of these horrible crimes seems to escape you. 80% of all violent crime is committed by illegal gangs. Gangs that are well known to police. Why do the powers that be allow them to run rampant?

Riddle us that batman...

That 80% statistic has been debunked all over the web. Post the link where you got it and I'll debunk it for you

Really? Please provide the debunking. I have seen nothing that you claim. Here is a simple overview that supports our view. There are many more but we know you won't bother to look at them.


Repeat Felons Dominate the Criminal Justice System—Most Convicted Felons do not Serve Time in Prison—Part One

 

[2aguy]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And it is for the most part. The fact that third world imports are committing the majority of these horrible crimes seems to escape you. 80% of all violent crime is committed by illegal gangs. Gangs that are well known to police. Why do the powers that be allow them to run rampant?

Riddle us that batman...

That 80% statistic has been debunked all over the web. Post the link where you got it and I'll debunk it for you

Except it isn't....

Roy Exum: How We Stop The Bullets

David Kennedy, a renowned criminal justice professor and co-chair of the National Network for Safe Communities, believes that places like the 1500 block of East 50th Street where Deontrey was killed, or Central Avenue where two other Chattanoogans were shot around the same time, aren’t necessarily bad areas. Good people live in those areas, just as the overwhelming numbers of those who live in our inner city are decent and law-abiding citizens.

No, our new focus isn’t on neighborhoods like Alton Park or East Chattanooga but instead on “hot” places” and “hot” people. In an article entitled, “The Story Behind the Nation’s Falling Body Count,” Kennedy writes, “Research on hot spots shows violence to be concentrated in ‘micro’ places, rather than ‘dangerous neighborhoods,’ as the popular idea goes. Blocks, corners, and buildings representing just five or six percent of an entire city will drive half of its serious crime.”

The same is true about people. “We now know that homicide and gun violence are overwhelmingly concentrated among serious offenders operating in groups: gangs, drug crews, and the like representing under half of one percent of a city's population who commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”

Read it once more: “ … under half of one percent … commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”

It is vitally important for us to realize the recent “worst of the worst” roundup had very little to do with race, yet to the uninformed it clearly appeared that only blacks were targeted.

Try to forget that all were black and focus instead on the far greater fact – there is ample evidence that each is alleged to be a serious criminal.

Kennedy writes, “We also know some reliable predictors of risk: individuals who have a history of violence or a close connection with prior victims are far more likely to be involved in violence themselves.

Hot groups and people are so hot that when their offending is statistically abstracted, their neighborhoods cease to be dangerous. Their communities aren't dangerous; (these criminals) are.”

 

[2aguy]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And it is for the most part. The fact that third world imports are committing the majority of these horrible crimes seems to escape you. 80% of all violent crime is committed by illegal gangs. Gangs that are well known to police. Why do the powers that be allow them to run rampant?

Riddle us that batman...

That 80% statistic has been debunked all over the web. Post the link where you got it and I'll debunk it for you

And here....

None

Non-fatal shootings:

In non-fatal shootings in 2011, 97 percent of the 177 suspects and 86 percent of the 473 victims had at least one prior arrest. The report doesn’t say how many.

However, O’Brien said a closer analysis of non-fatal shootings during a six-week period in July and August 2011, when non-fatal shootings increased, found that suspects had an average of 7.5 prior arrests and victims had an average of about six. O’Brien said that based on her past studies, she would expect that the rest of the suspects and victims in the non-fatal shootings in 2011 had a similar number of prior arrests.

So, more than 85 percent of the people involved in non-fatal shootings had at least one prior arrest. And there’s a strong indication, though not complete numbers, that most people involved in the non-fatal shootings had at least several prior arrests.

Homicides:

For all homicides in 2011 -- those involving guns and those that didn’t -- 57 percent of the 72 suspects and 62 percent of the 66 homicide victims had at least six prior arrests.

O’Brien said that based on past studies she has done, most homicides involve guns and it’s unlikely that arrest records would vary greatly between the people involved in shooting homicides versus non-shooting homicides.

So, a clear majority, but less than 85 percent, of the people involved in fatal shootings likely had at least six prior arrests; although, again, the study doesn’t provide hard numbers on that point.

We asked James Alan Fox, a criminology, law and public policy professor at Northeastern University in Boston, about Flynn’s claim. He said from a national perspective, most shootings involve people with an arrest history, although he couldn’t say how extensive that history is for the typical shooting suspect or victim.

 

[2aguy]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And it is for the most part. The fact that third world imports are committing the majority of these horrible crimes seems to escape you. 80% of all violent crime is committed by illegal gangs. Gangs that are well known to police. Why do the powers that be allow them to run rampant?

Riddle us that batman...

That 80% statistic has been debunked all over the web. Post the link where you got it and I'll debunk it for you

And from the vaunted CDC...you know...the agency that the anti gunners say is forbidden from doing gun research....here is a gun study from the CDC in 2015...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0



When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,”


the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

 

[2aguy]

In the language of today’s National Rifle Association, “an armed society is a polite society.” The aphorism, borrowed from the science-fiction author Robert Heinlein, is the inspiration for one of the N.R.A.’s most popular T-shirts, which bears the word “coexist,” spelled out in brightly colored ammo cartridges and guns. To promote the shirt ($17.99), the N.R.A. store says that Heinlein’s quote “emphasizes the independent, tolerant nature of gun owners in a fun and thought-provoking way.”

A Week of Gun Violence Does Nothing to Change the N.R.A.’s Message - The New Yorker

And it is for the most part. The fact that third world imports are committing the majority of these horrible crimes seems to escape you. 80% of all violent crime is committed by illegal gangs. Gangs that are well known to police. Why do the powers that be allow them to run rampant?

Riddle us that batman...

That 80% statistic has been debunked all over the web. Post the link where you got it and I'll debunk it for you

Or here......like.....the Journal of Trauma.....I have heard it is good bathroom reading material....

Public Health Pot Shots

According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

 

[2aguy]

That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.

"Bad actor?" What was the man convicted of? I haven't heard he was convicted of any crime. Have you?

He was dismissed form the Army for being a sexual pervert, and a general bunghole..

"Pentagon records do not reveal the reason for Johnson's Army discharge in April 2015. But a military lawyer who represented him said Johnson had been accused of sexually harassing a female soldier and had to leave the service. Bradford Glendening, a military attorney who practices near Fort Hood, said that the Army sent Johnson home from Afghanistan, which was unusual. Discipline for sexual harassment is typically counseling, he said.

"He was very much disliked by his command, that was clear," Glendening said.

The woman asked that Johnson receive "mental help" and asked for a protective order for herself and her family, Glendening said, adding that he wasn't sure which type of discharge Johnson ultimately received."

Ousted from Army, Dallas shooter used military skills for murder

The newspaper article opens with two speculations:

"Maybe it was the run-in with police in Richardson a year ago, after someone reported that he looked suspicious sitting in a parked Chevy Tahoe at a strip mall. "

"Maybe it was his encounter with a famous black-power activist this spring. Or his attendance at a film festival focused on Malcolm X, the charismatic black leader assassinated in 1965. "
​

Really? Speculation is how the DMN begins what's ostensibly a "hard news" story? Conjecture and reflection on the part of the story writer/news editor is the stuff of editorials not hard news. It's bad enough that the conjecture exists in the article at all, but that the article opens with it rather than with the standard "who, what, when, where and how" factual information that has been gathered is a pretty clear indication of the tone the paper aims to set.

Don't get me wrong, papers do this all the time, but never is it the right thing to do in a news piece. If the tone is favorable, we call it a "puff piece," and when the tone is negative, it's a "hatchet job." It clear to me the paper aims to cast Johnson not as he was, but rather as they want him to appear. To get a sense of what I mean, check out the Associated Press' approach to reporting the story. (AP's story was picked up and printed in the Boston Globe. Scroll down and you'll find a link to it.)

Buried in the middle is:

"Friends and acquaintances described the 25-year-old as a nice guy who in recent years cared for a younger brother. But they also say he had an obsession with heavy-duty weaponry and an interest in the military that dates at least to his senior year in high school. "

"Just fragments of Johnson's life have become public, and it is too soon to get a clear picture."

"The news will say what they think, but those that knew him know this wasn't like him."

"N'Kia Johnson-Williams, who took several classes with him, said he was very smart and not political. At a school with a diverse student body of blacks, whites and Asian-Americans, she said, 'I'd never known him to pick particular sides with race,' adding that his stepmother was white."

"The month after he was discharged, Richardson police received a 'suspicious person' report near a strip mall along Greenville Avenue. The caller, whose name was redacted from police records, reported a black 2006 Tahoe with four males inside sitting behind the mall for 20 or 30 minutes before pulling up out front."

"Two Richardson police officers arrived and found Johnson inside the Tahoe. He told them he'd just gotten out of a martial-arts class 'and was waiting for his dad to arrive' to pick up his brother, the report says."​

From the Daily Beast:

"Johnson received an honorable discharge and remained a member of the ready reserve."
​

The court of public opinion doesn't have to adhere to high standards of objectivity, but the fact is Johnson received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army. Why would that have happened as a consequence of a validly sexual harassment offense? Why would the Army not have sent him packing with either a general discharge or a "other than honorable discharge?" "Honorable discharge" and discharged from the Army for being a "bad actor, sexual pervert and/or general bunghole" don't go together in my mind. Something material in that story line is missing. I don't know what is missing, but I know something is.

According to the Boston Globe:

The suspected gunman in the Dallas massacre was expected to be kicked out of the Army after being accused of sexual harassment but was instead given an honorable discharge, according to the military lawyer who represented him.....

....According to a court filing Glendening read over the phone Friday, the victim said she wanted Johnson to ‘‘receive mental help,’’ while also seeking a protective order to keep him away from her and her family, wherever they went. Johnson was ordered to avoid all contact with her.

Glendening said Johnson was set to be removed from the Army in September 2014 because of the incident, but instead got an honorable discharge months later — for reasons he can’t understand....

...In his case, it was apparently so egregious, it was not just the act itself,’’ Glendening said. ‘‘I’m sure that this guy was the black sheep of his unit.
​

Some questions in my mind, ones for which I have no answer:

• What went on such that Johnson went from "set to be removed from the Army" because of sexual harassment to honorably discharged?
• Just how "on the ball" or involved was this lawyer who represented Johnson? The man described Johnson's actions as "apparently so egregious." That's odd.
  • Why did the lawyer, a "wordsmith," express a degree of uncertainty rather than stating the nature of Johnson's acts without the doubt interjected by saying "apparently?" That's a word one uses when things seem clear but one perceives that something is missing. It's not necessarily a lot of doubt, but it's some doubt rather than the absence of doubt.
  • How does that lawyer not know the details of the charge and its resolution well enough to not have to say "apparently?" I don't know. I read that Johnson left the Army as an E-3 and is from a working class family, so I'm guessing he didn't purchase "the best lawyer money could buy."
  • Did he actually defend Johnson in his hearing/trial or was he just there to "hold his hand?" Was he a representative/liaison of sorts, who happens to be an attorney, more so than functioning as the attorney who legally represented Johnson as his lawyer in the case?
  • Why did the lawyer disclose anything about Johnson and his case? Attorney-client privilege endures after the client's death. Did the bar association or a court order the disclosure? Based solely on what I've read of the attorney's remarks, I certainly wouldn't hire or recommend him to anyone. The idea that my attorney would ever have, outside of a courtroom or legal filing, anything to say short of "no comment" about me my matters is totally unacceptable to me.
  • By what right does Johnson's attorney have any place asserting that "someone really screwed up?" Some advocate he was....
• What does the sexual harassment charge, apparently one for which he wasn't convicted given his discharge status, have to do with the shooting? A thief is not necessarily a murderer or rapist too, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, while I see Johnson's acts as vehemently deplorable, I also think the reporting about Johnson's character are incomplete and the press, in a rush to publish whatever they can, have failed to comprehensively and objectively report the full picture of multiple dimensions of the man who Johnson was. That's not as bad as shooting five people, but in consideration of what we rely on the press for, it's quite bad.

You don't get shipped back home from an active war zone for petty sexual harrassment.........he was also a Reservist, not active military....it is far easier to get an honorable discharge in the Reserves and National Guard than it is in the regular military ........

We had guys in our National Guard unit who would just stop showing up.....they were released from the Guard with honorable discharges..........

 

[320 Years of History]

That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.

"Bad actor?" What was the man convicted of? I haven't heard he was convicted of any crime. Have you?

He was dismissed form the Army for being a sexual pervert, and a general bunghole..

"Pentagon records do not reveal the reason for Johnson's Army discharge in April 2015. But a military lawyer who represented him said Johnson had been accused of sexually harassing a female soldier and had to leave the service. Bradford Glendening, a military attorney who practices near Fort Hood, said that the Army sent Johnson home from Afghanistan, which was unusual. Discipline for sexual harassment is typically counseling, he said.

"He was very much disliked by his command, that was clear," Glendening said.

The woman asked that Johnson receive "mental help" and asked for a protective order for herself and her family, Glendening said, adding that he wasn't sure which type of discharge Johnson ultimately received."

Ousted from Army, Dallas shooter used military skills for murder

The newspaper article opens with two speculations:

"Maybe it was the run-in with police in Richardson a year ago, after someone reported that he looked suspicious sitting in a parked Chevy Tahoe at a strip mall. "

"Maybe it was his encounter with a famous black-power activist this spring. Or his attendance at a film festival focused on Malcolm X, the charismatic black leader assassinated in 1965. "
​

Really? Speculation is how the DMN begins what's ostensibly a "hard news" story? Conjecture and reflection on the part of the story writer/news editor is the stuff of editorials not hard news. It's bad enough that the conjecture exists in the article at all, but that the article opens with it rather than with the standard "who, what, when, where and how" factual information that has been gathered is a pretty clear indication of the tone the paper aims to set.

Don't get me wrong, papers do this all the time, but never is it the right thing to do in a news piece. If the tone is favorable, we call it a "puff piece," and when the tone is negative, it's a "hatchet job." It clear to me the paper aims to cast Johnson not as he was, but rather as they want him to appear. To get a sense of what I mean, check out the Associated Press' approach to reporting the story. (AP's story was picked up and printed in the Boston Globe. Scroll down and you'll find a link to it.)

Buried in the middle is:

"Friends and acquaintances described the 25-year-old as a nice guy who in recent years cared for a younger brother. But they also say he had an obsession with heavy-duty weaponry and an interest in the military that dates at least to his senior year in high school. "

"Just fragments of Johnson's life have become public, and it is too soon to get a clear picture."

"The news will say what they think, but those that knew him know this wasn't like him."

"N'Kia Johnson-Williams, who took several classes with him, said he was very smart and not political. At a school with a diverse student body of blacks, whites and Asian-Americans, she said, 'I'd never known him to pick particular sides with race,' adding that his stepmother was white."

"The month after he was discharged, Richardson police received a 'suspicious person' report near a strip mall along Greenville Avenue. The caller, whose name was redacted from police records, reported a black 2006 Tahoe with four males inside sitting behind the mall for 20 or 30 minutes before pulling up out front."

"Two Richardson police officers arrived and found Johnson inside the Tahoe. He told them he'd just gotten out of a martial-arts class 'and was waiting for his dad to arrive' to pick up his brother, the report says."​

From the Daily Beast:

"Johnson received an honorable discharge and remained a member of the ready reserve."
​

The court of public opinion doesn't have to adhere to high standards of objectivity, but the fact is Johnson received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army. Why would that have happened as a consequence of a validly sexual harassment offense? Why would the Army not have sent him packing with either a general discharge or a "other than honorable discharge?" "Honorable discharge" and discharged from the Army for being a "bad actor, sexual pervert and/or general bunghole" don't go together in my mind. Something material in that story line is missing. I don't know what is missing, but I know something is.

According to the Boston Globe:

The suspected gunman in the Dallas massacre was expected to be kicked out of the Army after being accused of sexual harassment but was instead given an honorable discharge, according to the military lawyer who represented him.....

....According to a court filing Glendening read over the phone Friday, the victim said she wanted Johnson to ‘‘receive mental help,’’ while also seeking a protective order to keep him away from her and her family, wherever they went. Johnson was ordered to avoid all contact with her.

Glendening said Johnson was set to be removed from the Army in September 2014 because of the incident, but instead got an honorable discharge months later — for reasons he can’t understand....

...In his case, it was apparently so egregious, it was not just the act itself,’’ Glendening said. ‘‘I’m sure that this guy was the black sheep of his unit.
​

Some questions in my mind, ones for which I have no answer:

• What went on such that Johnson went from "set to be removed from the Army" because of sexual harassment to honorably discharged?
• Just how "on the ball" or involved was this lawyer who represented Johnson? The man described Johnson's actions as "apparently so egregious." That's odd.
  • Why did the lawyer, a "wordsmith," express a degree of uncertainty rather than stating the nature of Johnson's acts without the doubt interjected by saying "apparently?" That's a word one uses when things seem clear but one perceives that something is missing. It's not necessarily a lot of doubt, but it's some doubt rather than the absence of doubt.
  • How does that lawyer not know the details of the charge and its resolution well enough to not have to say "apparently?" I don't know. I read that Johnson left the Army as an E-3 and is from a working class family, so I'm guessing he didn't purchase "the best lawyer money could buy."
  • Did he actually defend Johnson in his hearing/trial or was he just there to "hold his hand?" Was he a representative/liaison of sorts, who happens to be an attorney, more so than functioning as the attorney who legally represented Johnson as his lawyer in the case?
  • Why did the lawyer disclose anything about Johnson and his case? Attorney-client privilege endures after the client's death. Did the bar association or a court order the disclosure? Based solely on what I've read of the attorney's remarks, I certainly wouldn't hire or recommend him to anyone. The idea that my attorney would ever have, outside of a courtroom or legal filing, anything to say short of "no comment" about me my matters is totally unacceptable to me.
  • By what right does Johnson's attorney have any place asserting that "someone really screwed up?" Some advocate he was....
• What does the sexual harassment charge, apparently one for which he wasn't convicted given his discharge status, have to do with the shooting? A thief is not necessarily a murderer or rapist too, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, while I see Johnson's acts as vehemently deplorable, I also think the reporting about Johnson's character are incomplete and the press, in a rush to publish whatever they can, have failed to comprehensively and objectively report the full picture of multiple dimensions of the man who Johnson was. That's not as bad as shooting five people, but in consideration of what we rely on the press for, it's quite bad.

You don't get shipped back home from an active war zone for petty sexual harrassment.........he was also a Reservist, not active military....it is far easier to get an honorable discharge in the Reserves and National Guard than it is in the regular military ........

We had guys in our National Guard unit who would just stop showing up.....they were released from the Guard with honorable discharges..........

I'm sure different employers handle sexual harassment differently. In my firm, sexual harassment, if it's thought to be a valid claim, will get one fired. We don't view that, along with a host of other behaviors, as "petty."

Be that as it may, the fact remains that however unusual the circumstances and chain of events -- some key ones of which are clearly unbeknownst to the general public -- the man got an honorable discharge. Perhaps the relative ease of getting honorably discharged as a reservist vs as an active duty soldier is the reason. I can't find any documentation indicating a lower or different set of standards being applied to reservists than are applied to active duty personnel.

More to the point of my original post, you'll notice the tone of the reporting made in the papers noted earlier and that of Military.com, which opens it article as follows:

"Military service changed the Dallas gunman from an extrovert into a hermit, his parents said in an interview excerpt published Monday."
​

Another thing, in addition to those I noted earlier, that I find odd is that of all the things one might find in court records, the only thing the major news services see fit to share is this:

"According to a court filing, the victim said she wanted Johnson to "receive mental help," and sought a protective order to keep him away from her and her family. Johnson was ordered to avoid all contact with her."​

Am I really the only person who's wondering:

• What was the court's decision/settlement/order was delivered in the matter? We know someone determined to discharge the guy. Is that all? Was "guilty" the verdict?
• What evidence was offered and rebutted? How strong was it?
• Was the harassment victim's request made before or after the court's decision of guilt/non-guilt? Was it given among pre-sentencing testimony?

How do those basic details not get disclosed and yet, apparently some reporter gained access to the court document(s) pertaining to Johnson's case?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything untoward, but I am saying that the reporting about Johnson has been shoddy. At the very least, reporters could note that they asked for the information that would answer questions like those I've posed and that they were denied direct answers/information. But they haven't done that either. Gaps like that in the nature and extent of information appearing in news reports make me think there's something biased afoot. I suspect if anything, it's folks' reticence to present the guy as "just a normal dude" who "flipped out." Why might that image be not the one papers want to present? Well, because damn near everyone is a "normal guy" which means damn near everyone could just "lose it" and do something on the order of what Johnson did. Nobody wants to face that very real possibility.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not one gun law proposed would actually target criminals. Name one gun law that doesn't effect normal gun owners while doing nothing to stop mass shooters and criminals.

The point you make has in it the implicit assumption that every would be criminal who wants to use a gun in carrying out their nefarious act(s) will get one/some. The more realistic assumption is that some of them will indeed get hold of a gun somehow and that others of them will not. To the extent that those who wanted a gun to aid in their criminal act do not in fact obtain one, a gun access limiting measure will have worked insofar as it will have prevented that would be illegal gun user from committing an act of gun violence.

Actually, the more realistic assumption would be that whoever wanted to perform these mass killings would find some implement to do so be it a gun, bomb or even a car as we just seen in France.

The mistake here is assuming that access to a particular form of killing is the problem. That is just silly if you are willing to look at the facts. The fascination with weapons such as the AR is an interesting cultural point BUT it does not address the overall cultural problems that generate these mass killers in the first place.

The single largest mass killing in this nation was not even committed with a gun if I am not mistaken - it was done with a bomb. Taking guns away will, at worst, cause no change at all as they find a way to get them and at the very beast cause them to migrate to another weapon of choice - one that can be better or worse as guns are far from the most efficient way of killing many people at one time.

The reality is that mass murderers are not interested in the law or they would not be mass murdering. They will ignore gun laws and other laws that limit their ability to kill many people. Intelligence is about the only thing that you can do to combat something like that and clearly intelligence is both limited and fallible. Trying to control guns to limit these killers is ineffective and pointless.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's true but the guy in Dallas already had a record that was not shared out till after he was dead. He was a known bad actor to a part of the government.

"Bad actor?" What was the man convicted of? I haven't heard he was convicted of any crime. Have you?

He was dismissed form the Army for being a sexual pervert, and a general bunghole..

"Pentagon records do not reveal the reason for Johnson's Army discharge in April 2015. But a military lawyer who represented him said Johnson had been accused of sexually harassing a female soldier and had to leave the service. Bradford Glendening, a military attorney who practices near Fort Hood, said that the Army sent Johnson home from Afghanistan, which was unusual. Discipline for sexual harassment is typically counseling, he said.

"He was very much disliked by his command, that was clear," Glendening said.

The woman asked that Johnson receive "mental help" and asked for a protective order for herself and her family, Glendening said, adding that he wasn't sure which type of discharge Johnson ultimately received."

Ousted from Army, Dallas shooter used military skills for murder

The newspaper article opens with two speculations:

"Maybe it was the run-in with police in Richardson a year ago, after someone reported that he looked suspicious sitting in a parked Chevy Tahoe at a strip mall. "

"Maybe it was his encounter with a famous black-power activist this spring. Or his attendance at a film festival focused on Malcolm X, the charismatic black leader assassinated in 1965. "
​

Really? Speculation is how the DMN begins what's ostensibly a "hard news" story? Conjecture and reflection on the part of the story writer/news editor is the stuff of editorials not hard news. It's bad enough that the conjecture exists in the article at all, but that the article opens with it rather than with the standard "who, what, when, where and how" factual information that has been gathered is a pretty clear indication of the tone the paper aims to set.

Don't get me wrong, papers do this all the time, but never is it the right thing to do in a news piece. If the tone is favorable, we call it a "puff piece," and when the tone is negative, it's a "hatchet job." It clear to me the paper aims to cast Johnson not as he was, but rather as they want him to appear. To get a sense of what I mean, check out the Associated Press' approach to reporting the story. (AP's story was picked up and printed in the Boston Globe. Scroll down and you'll find a link to it.)

Buried in the middle is:

"Friends and acquaintances described the 25-year-old as a nice guy who in recent years cared for a younger brother. But they also say he had an obsession with heavy-duty weaponry and an interest in the military that dates at least to his senior year in high school. "

"Just fragments of Johnson's life have become public, and it is too soon to get a clear picture."

"The news will say what they think, but those that knew him know this wasn't like him."

"N'Kia Johnson-Williams, who took several classes with him, said he was very smart and not political. At a school with a diverse student body of blacks, whites and Asian-Americans, she said, 'I'd never known him to pick particular sides with race,' adding that his stepmother was white."

"The month after he was discharged, Richardson police received a 'suspicious person' report near a strip mall along Greenville Avenue. The caller, whose name was redacted from police records, reported a black 2006 Tahoe with four males inside sitting behind the mall for 20 or 30 minutes before pulling up out front."

"Two Richardson police officers arrived and found Johnson inside the Tahoe. He told them he'd just gotten out of a martial-arts class 'and was waiting for his dad to arrive' to pick up his brother, the report says."​

From the Daily Beast:

"Johnson received an honorable discharge and remained a member of the ready reserve."
​

The court of public opinion doesn't have to adhere to high standards of objectivity, but the fact is Johnson received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army. Why would that have happened as a consequence of a validly sexual harassment offense? Why would the Army not have sent him packing with either a general discharge or a "other than honorable discharge?" "Honorable discharge" and discharged from the Army for being a "bad actor, sexual pervert and/or general bunghole" don't go together in my mind. Something material in that story line is missing. I don't know what is missing, but I know something is.

According to the Boston Globe:

The suspected gunman in the Dallas massacre was expected to be kicked out of the Army after being accused of sexual harassment but was instead given an honorable discharge, according to the military lawyer who represented him.....

....According to a court filing Glendening read over the phone Friday, the victim said she wanted Johnson to ‘‘receive mental help,’’ while also seeking a protective order to keep him away from her and her family, wherever they went. Johnson was ordered to avoid all contact with her.

Glendening said Johnson was set to be removed from the Army in September 2014 because of the incident, but instead got an honorable discharge months later — for reasons he can’t understand....

...In his case, it was apparently so egregious, it was not just the act itself,’’ Glendening said. ‘‘I’m sure that this guy was the black sheep of his unit.
​

Some questions in my mind, ones for which I have no answer:

• What went on such that Johnson went from "set to be removed from the Army" because of sexual harassment to honorably discharged?
• Just how "on the ball" or involved was this lawyer who represented Johnson? The man described Johnson's actions as "apparently so egregious." That's odd.
  • Why did the lawyer, a "wordsmith," express a degree of uncertainty rather than stating the nature of Johnson's acts without the doubt interjected by saying "apparently?" That's a word one uses when things seem clear but one perceives that something is missing. It's not necessarily a lot of doubt, but it's some doubt rather than the absence of doubt.
  • How does that lawyer not know the details of the charge and its resolution well enough to not have to say "apparently?" I don't know. I read that Johnson left the Army as an E-3 and is from a working class family, so I'm guessing he didn't purchase "the best lawyer money could buy."
  • Did he actually defend Johnson in his hearing/trial or was he just there to "hold his hand?" Was he a representative/liaison of sorts, who happens to be an attorney, more so than functioning as the attorney who legally represented Johnson as his lawyer in the case?
  • Why did the lawyer disclose anything about Johnson and his case? Attorney-client privilege endures after the client's death. Did the bar association or a court order the disclosure? Based solely on what I've read of the attorney's remarks, I certainly wouldn't hire or recommend him to anyone. The idea that my attorney would ever have, outside of a courtroom or legal filing, anything to say short of "no comment" about me my matters is totally unacceptable to me.
  • By what right does Johnson's attorney have any place asserting that "someone really screwed up?" Some advocate he was....
• What does the sexual harassment charge, apparently one for which he wasn't convicted given his discharge status, have to do with the shooting? A thief is not necessarily a murderer or rapist too, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, while I see Johnson's acts as vehemently deplorable, I also think the reporting about Johnson's character are incomplete and the press, in a rush to publish whatever they can, have failed to comprehensively and objectively report the full picture of multiple dimensions of the man who Johnson was. That's not as bad as shooting five people, but in consideration of what we rely on the press for, it's quite bad.

You don't get shipped back home from an active war zone for petty sexual harrassment.........he was also a Reservist, not active military....it is far easier to get an honorable discharge in the Reserves and National Guard than it is in the regular military ........

We had guys in our National Guard unit who would just stop showing up.....they were released from the Guard with honorable discharges..........

You do now.

The treatment of sexual harassment is massively different today than it was a scant 5 years ago. After the break of the story with the training instructors sexually harassing some of the trainees, the military as a whole has undergone massive changes in sexual harassment treatment. Commanders are no longer even part of the process and the fastest way to end up in jail or kicked out is cross that line.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why is that? You're going to make 300 million guns disappear?

And it's hard to take this seriously from someone who thinks we should keep our borders open to anyone who wants to cross them ... carrying whatever they want to carry. Including ... guns ...

We can't keep pot away from high schoolers. But we're going to keep guns away from criminals, yeah.

So no, your plan to keep guns from honest citizens isn't a "start," it's a red herring

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

I'm simply not going to answer any more of your questions until you directly respond to mine.

Do you really not believe that if we made ALL semi automatic weapons illegal that a black market would develop and criminals who want to obtain semi automatic weapons will still obtain them? That is a simple yes or no question.

Even the firearm control act of 1938 wasn't made because the government felt they needed to keep people from getting automatic weapons, it was made to have another tool to go after the mob, nothing more.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol......

Banning semi auto weapons changes nothing...it didn't Change it in France, Sweden, Belgium, Britain, Australia.......they still get fully automatic weapons in those countries.....

How highly effective are weapons that have only killed 154 people in 34 years......

According to you then knives should be banned...they murdered 1,567 in 2014 and murder over 1,500 every single year....

rifles...in 2014... 248


Why don't you use your emotion to call for a ban on knives since they kill more people in the real world......?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol.....
Great, Guy! Then do it with a shotgun or pistol. What's the problem then?

They do it will all kinds of implements including such weapons. The last major shooting was done with a weapon completely different from what was done at the night clup and the latest in France was done with a vehicle rather than a gun of any sort. Bombs are used as well.

Ignoring those because you want to focus on the latest obsession with rifles does not mean that particular implement is the problem.

 

[320 Years of History]

the AR is an interesting cultural point BUT it does not address the overall cultural problems that generate these mass killers in the first place.

Agree.

The single largest mass killing in this nation was not even committed with a gun if I am not mistaken - it was done with a bomb.

Well, if you call box cutters and airplanes bombs, sure.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the AR is an interesting cultural point BUT it does not address the overall cultural problems that generate these mass killers in the first place.

Agree.

The single largest mass killing in this nation was not even committed with a gun if I am not mistaken - it was done with a bomb.

Well, if you call box cutters and airplanes bombs, sure.

I think he might have meant the Oklahoma bombing

 

[Fair&Balanced]

320, the way civilians handle sexual harrasment, or nearly anything else for that matter, has no bearing on the way the military handles things.

I am SHOCKED that the guy didn't have a big chicken dinner on his resume.if the sexual harrasment charges had any merit whatsoever.

So, I imagine they did not. I imagine this guy was just an asshole that was disliked by everyone in his command and so the barest of charges gave his superiors justification to offer him an honorable discharge and a ticket home in lieu of a court martial , which no matter how thin the charges, could have resulted in much worse. It actually happens all the time. It's a military version of a plea bargain.

 

[kaz]

Put away your paint roller, buster. I never said borders should remain open to anyone who wants to cross them.
Why is WHAT? Where did I say limiting semiautomatic rifles was making "300 million guns disappear."

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer. Criminals will get illegal guns from the same floating bunch of firearms they do now. What makes you think there needs to be a NEW black market? However, if semi's aren't floating in huge numbers, huge numbers will not end up being traded and sold illegally. Not as many as are now, by a long shot. That is my answer. Smuggled guns from Mexico are not the primary source of illegal guns in this country, are they? Do you see S&W sneakily manufacturing semi's for the American market? I think you're defeating any suggested solution by saying "some people will break the law." Well, a lot of people commit murder every year, too. Does that mean we shouldn't bother having it be illegal?

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol......

Banning semi auto weapons changes nothing...it didn't Change it in France, Sweden, Belgium, Britain, Australia.......they still get fully automatic weapons in those countries.....

How highly effective are weapons that have only killed 154 people in 34 years......

According to you then knives should be banned...they murdered 1,567 in 2014 and murder over 1,500 every single year....

rifles...in 2014... 248


Why don't you use your emotion to call for a ban on knives since they kill more people in the real world......?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol.....
Great, Guy! Then do it with a shotgun or pistol. What's the problem then?

They do it will all kinds of implements including such weapons. The last major shooting was done with a weapon completely different from what was done at the night clup and the latest in France was done with a vehicle rather than a gun of any sort. Bombs are used as well.

Ignoring those because you want to focus on the latest obsession with rifles does not mean that particular implement is the problem.

It's amazing how the left think if terrorists can't go into a shop and buy a gun, they'll give up and go home.

They won't find another way to kill people or, you know, buy an illegal gun. Nope, I want to kill 80 people, but only if I can buy a legal gun to do it! Apparently it doesn't work that way. Hmm ... who saw that coming?

 

[FA_Q2]

the AR is an interesting cultural point BUT it does not address the overall cultural problems that generate these mass killers in the first place.

Agree.

The single largest mass killing in this nation was not even committed with a gun if I am not mistaken - it was done with a bomb.

Well, if you call box cutters and airplanes bombs, sure.

I should have clarified that as perpetrated by a single person.

Timothy McVeigh holds that horrific title as far as I know.

 

[FA_Q2]

So you want to take serious steps like a wall to stop illegal immigration?

And all you want to do is "limit" semiautomatic rifles? Other than that, you don't want more gun control?

I want to BAN semiautomatic guns of all sizes. And when you show me reliable statistics that the majority of illegal guns in this country originated in Mexico or South America, I will push the wheelbarrow for you.

I don't like the answer, because it is nonsensical. Drugs, and alcohol before it, is empirical PROOF that banning something doesn't decrease the desire to have that something, in fact it INCREASES the desire to have that something.

Also, it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.

Also, you probably aren't aware of this, but in MOST cases a sniper, such as we saw in Dallas the other day, would actually choose a BOLT action rifle over a semi automatic one anyway due to the inherent accuracy advantage.

But, to further address your concerns. Instead of banning handguns, why don't you advocate simply removing handguns from people who are already not supposed to own them? What percentage of the people who are shot in Chicago every day would you guesstimate are shot by other people who already legally shouldn't own or possess a gun due to being a felon or what have you? My guess is >90%, probably 100%.

it doesn't change the fact that banning a weapon does NOTHING to address the problem of the person using the weapon to do harm.
A banned weapon will not be readily available to the person who wants it. It seems that most of our recent mass shootings have involved Joe-Average citizens without a criminal history who went off the rails and shot mass numbers of innocent people with semi-automatic rifles. They would not have that gun in their closet if they couldn't have bought it from the store. You know where to go to buy a bag of smack? I don't. I know where some of the dealers and users hang out but you think they're going to sell to me just because I walk around with a $10 bill and ask? I do understand your argument but I do not agree with your predicted outcome that it will change nothing. It will make highly effective killing machines less likely to be in the hands of a messed up Joe Citizen on the day he decides to go postal. Is it going to stop every shooting in this country? No. Will it help? Yes. I think it will. That is where we differ in opinion.
What I propose does not eliminate the need to remove handguns from those who have them illegally. But what do you want me to do? I'm too old to be hired by the Chicago PD. I don't live in Chicago, so I can't vote for a law and order candidate there. Of course I advocate getting guns from criminals. Who doesn't?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol......

Banning semi auto weapons changes nothing...it didn't Change it in France, Sweden, Belgium, Britain, Australia.......they still get fully automatic weapons in those countries.....

How highly effective are weapons that have only killed 154 people in 34 years......

According to you then knives should be banned...they murdered 1,567 in 2014 and murder over 1,500 every single year....

rifles...in 2014... 248


Why don't you use your emotion to call for a ban on knives since they kill more people in the real world......?

Of course you know because I have told you there isn't one mass shooting that has happened that couldn't have been done with a shot gun or pistol.....
Great, Guy! Then do it with a shotgun or pistol. What's the problem then?

They do it will all kinds of implements including such weapons. The last major shooting was done with a weapon completely different from what was done at the night clup and the latest in France was done with a vehicle rather than a gun of any sort. Bombs are used as well.

Ignoring those because you want to focus on the latest obsession with rifles does not mean that particular implement is the problem.

It's amazing how the left think if terrorists can't go into a shop and buy a gun, they'll give up and go home.

They won't find another way to kill people or, you know, buy an illegal gun. Nope, I want to kill 80 people, but only if I can buy a legal gun to do it! Apparently it doesn't work that way. Hmm ... who saw that coming?

That seems to be how many think that goes.

The reality is that guns are not the most effective killing machines. Bombs can be far more effective and even a car in a crowded place can do more damage. Killers will kill, the implement is not the problem as much as the culture and ability to apprehend them is.