The Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas was the site of one of those mass shootings.
Of course, an armed citizen probably couldn't have stopped it since the shooters shot "in an ambush style from the woods in camouflaged clothes".
The body count--five people, four female students and a teacher, were killed. Ten people, nine students and one teacher, were injured.
Since the perps were both Juveniles, their maximum sentence was to serve in a Juvenile facility until they were 21. They would have served until only age 18 had federal authorities not added additional confinement for weapons charges!
The people of Jonesboro were outraged that both shooters were released with no further supervision and were legally able to buy firearms!
Although, we can question whether Greg is upset that the shooters would not be deprived of his "gun rights".
After all, you can't have too many guns out there--especially if they fall into the hands of the wrong people!
According to Wiki, Johnson has been arrested for several other crimes (one of them for carrying a loaded 9mm handgun) and is back in stir. It sounds like an OJ payback type of sentence. They couldn't put him away for the school shootings so they jugged him for crimes that would have likely been plead out to misdemeanors under other circumstances.
ReplyDeleteYeah, we don't need no steekeen background checks!
I do wish that when you refer to me, you refer to the actual me, and not the straw man that you've assembled. (But if you could send the straw man to work for me, I'd appreciate that.) It's not altogether clear under Arkansas law whether the shooters will ever be able to get their rights back, but as far as I can determine, while an employer might not get the record, the FBI certainly has it, so they will never be eligible to buy a firearm again, unless their rights are restored.
ReplyDeleteFat chance of that, and that's how it should be.
If the state doesn't send this person's name to the NCIS, there is no impediment to buying a future firearm, nor is there one if he chose to purchase through private sale.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDeleteUnless they break the law as adults they don't have a record. Johnson's solved that conondrum.
You'll get no argument from me that the state needs to report this to NCIS. I'd imagine that that's already been done, but then, I work for the government too, so I know how sometimes things just don't get done.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDelete"I do wish that when you refer to me, you refer to the actual me, and not the straw man that you've assembled."
Sez a guy who doesn't address his complaing to anyone.
"Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteYou'll get no argument from me that the state needs to report this to NCIS. I'd imagine that that's already been done,"
That would be a bad thing to assume.
Some30 states do not report ANY names whatsoever to the NCIS, and haven't since it was started. Many of the remaining 20 states,,like Az, report only a few hundred of the thousands that should be reported.
Know why that is?
It is because the legislation that created the NCIS was gutted at the federal level through the efforts of the NRA to make reporting voluntary / optional for the states to comply.
So GUESS WHAT the right wing gun nuts and their money-spending buddies from the NRA lobbyists did? They have made a point of opposing the funding at the state level necessary to send those names to the NCIS, and otherwise opposed those names being provided.
WHO benefits from that? Gun loons who want to own guns but are legally prohibited from doing so, gun loons who want everyone to be able to carry without a permit, and most of all(you know, people like you) - the gun manufacturers.
Who is it that gives hollow hypocritical lip service to how safe we are because this guy's name is on file with the NCIS, and how this guy has to get his gun rights back when he probably doesn't at all?
That would be the NRA and uninformed people like you.
I just told you that I have no objection to reporting felony convictions to the NCIS. That's a good policy. I think that non-violent felons ought to get their rights back, once they've demonstrated that they can be trusted, but anyone who's been convicted of a violent crime deserves to be gun free from the conviction on.
ReplyDeleteMental health suspicions are a different matter.
Having no objection to the states reporting names to the NCIS is not the same thing as asserting that you think the state has done so.
ReplyDeleteClearly they don't do so in a majority of the instances where the names should be reported.
The responsibility for that goes squarely to the NRA, and mostly to the political right pro-gunners.
So if you don't object to the names being reported, do you object to the names NOT being reported?
Done much about that?
I'm betting not.
I faulted you for making a statement about name reporting that is contrary to facts about name reporting.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou never let go, even when you're worrying the wrong bone. The NRA got the law to say that reporting to the NCIS is voluntary. O.K. Doesn't that mean that the burden is on the states? The NRA is an advocacy group; it's not a government entity. They push for as much as they can get, knowing that compromise always means getting less than you want.
I just said that I don't oppose reporting every violent offender to the system. If you want to change the law to make that mandatory, I won't object to that. I'm not on your side, so I don't see that I need to fight for your causes. I do agree that reporting is a good idea--with regard to convictions, not mental health--so I won't work against you on that one.
I never asserted that all states report all offenders. I'm sure that you have a pile of numbers to show me about how the system doesn't work. As I've said, I've worked for the government in one form or another for a long time, and I do know all too much about what the phrase, "good enough for government work," means. You're faulting me for nothing here. If you'd back off your committment to "Dog Gone is right, and her opponents are wrong," you'd see that on this subject, we agree, at least in some (large) measure.
Come on, greg, if you weren't a total fuckwit, you would realise that this is a perfect example of the world your gun policies create.
ReplyDeleteDon't you feel good that this kid is allowed to own a gun?
You have made it quite clear that you oppose policies that make it hard for criminals to have access to weapons since they "inconvenience" the law abiding.
Well, if the truly law abiding want a gun, then they can put up with a little inconvenience.
Otherwise, it's their tough shit.
Greg, the world of easy access to firearms is what makes things like that so common in the US.
So, I hope you are happy when you hear about the dead bodies piling up.
They are the reality--not the bullshit you keep spouting, Greg.
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe NRA got the law to say that reporting to the NCIS is voluntary. O.K. Doesn't that mean that the burden is on the states? The NRA is an advocacy group; it's not a government entity. They push for as much as they can get, knowing that compromise always means getting less than you want.
The NRA lobbies at both state and the federal level. They coordinated it so that the reporting would be optional, so that funding the reporting would be optional, and then they lobbied against funding and reporting at the state level.
No, the NRA is not the government, but they can corrupt the government, on behalf of their REAL clients - the gun manufacturers.
The current law REQUIRES the reporting of people who are deemed dangerously ill - dangerous to themselves or others. You OPPOSE that? Are YOU nuts?
You blithely asserted the name of this guy was probably supported; I hear similar assertions from pro-gun anti-check anti-regulation people all the time.
When the reality is, most people who should be reported are NOT reported. Asserting so glibly that names are reported when most are not is intellectually dishonest. You either know better and still misrepresent those facts, or you don't know better and repeat the ignorant gun party line.
What changes that is massive shooting tragedies. In Colorado, it was Columbine that made that difference in gun reporting.
Don't YOU know if your own state reports or doesn't report Greg? I'd expect you to know after a school shooting since you tell us you are a teacher... Or did you think it was a coincidence that Laci posted this?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't living in Arkansas at the time, but I am aware of the Jonesboro shooting. I don't work for law enforcement or the court system in this state, so I can't answer whether the two shooters were reported. Do you seriously hold me responsible for taking care of that?
What exactly are you arguing with me about here? I said that the state is supposed to report their record. I said that I don't know if that was done. I said that it ought to be done. Legally, as far as I can see, the two shooters are not allowed to by firearms. Good.
What about what I just said are you arguing with?
Before you make comments about a specific state reporting, particularly a state where you live and work and carry a gun, I'd think you should find out what the status is on reporting, especially BEFORE speaking about it.
ReplyDeleteDon't you?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI said that the system is supposed to report the convicts. It's rarely safe to presume that the government is doing its job, but since the particular area in question is not my field, I can't confirm that it's being done. That's for you to worry about.
I thought Brady's position was that NICS was a huge success and stopped a bagillion illegal gun purchases. I seem to recall those exaggerated reports. So which is it? Is it a huge success or a dismal failure? Is the NRA an giant oppressive magic regime or are they insignificant this week?
ReplyDeleteSeems like the anti-freedom crowd flip flops as much as Mitt Romney.
"I said that the system is supposed to report the convicts. It's rarely safe to presume that the government is doing its job, but since the particular area in question is not my field, I can't confirm that it's being done. That's for you to worry about.
ReplyDeleteNovember 23, 2011 9:42 PM'
Shorter Greg Camp:
"I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about, but I WILL flap my lips impressively.".
The entire background check system needs to be revamped as far as the reporting procedures go. Then guns need to be registered to licensed owners. After that criminals will no longer so easily be able to get guns.
ReplyDeleteFatWhiteMan said...
ReplyDeleteI thought Brady's position was that NICS was a huge success and stopped a bagillion illegal gun purchases. I seem to recall those exaggerated reports. So which is it?
It is a huge success in stopping people where states have provided the names.
Obviously, that is not true for the states which have NOT provided the names.
Aw, come on now FWM, you can do better than to try this over-simplification trick, can't you? Come on now, try.
Is it a huge success or a dismal failure? Is the NRA an giant oppressive magic regime or are they insignificant this week?
The NRA is a very well funded operation devoted to corrupting our political process so as to make more money for gun manufacturers, including by making it easier to sell guns to crazy people and criminals.
Seems like the anti-freedom crowd flip flops as much as Mitt Romney.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteYou see, this is why we refuse to discuss any compromise. You talk about improving the background check system, but then you immediately add registration. We know where this all is headed, so no deals. You're going to have to fight for everything that you want.
And your positions, Greg Camp, is NO fucking rules, NOT fucking EVER, for NOFUCKINGBODY where the ISIO* is concerned. Doesn't it?
ReplyDelete* Ineffably Sacred Inanimate Object.
You're not as smart as you sound, Greg. It would be in your best interest to cooperate. You'd clean up the pool of gun owners to the point that any further discussion of restrictions would be laughable.
ReplyDeleteBut, self-centered and short-sighted to the max, you'd rather have the current gun availability to the unfit and the dangerous, the easily identified ones, than to be inconvenienced even a little.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThere are hundreds of millions of guns in America, and we have a porous border. Do you really think that registering new gun purchases will stop gun violence? How much harder is it to transport a kilo of steel across the line than a kilo of cocaine? That's especially when the gun can be broken down into parts. Do you imagine that every gun in this country will be registered, even if the law requires that? The law will in itself create a market for unregistered guns. I have my own collection, and there are plenty of gun owners like me. Can't you see how some gun owners will be motivated to sell a few of their guns without reporting the sale--especially the ones that had no record of sale in the first place? And what about guns that have been stolen already? Those are in the wind, available to anyone who wants to buy one discreetly. Your faith in registration is simplistic.
I've already said that I'd be willing to compromise on background checks for criminal records. I'd prefer the checks to be free, since I do understand that extra fees burden people of limited means more than the well off. I just don't see how your proposals will make it all that hard to obtain a gun without paperwork, given the realities of this country. Other nations have managed it because they had fewer guns and gun owners. The supply was a lot smaller.
But I've also read your comments and those of the others here on your side. None of you really likes private ownership of guns. Do you expect us to trust you, when we know that you don't like our choices? Putting you or other gun control advocates in charge of our gun laws is like giving control of liquor sales to Alcoholics Anonymous.