Here we go again…

  • Jollyllama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The guys was committed for two weeks and had threatened to shoot up a national guard base. They had the information to act on and take away his guns and they didn’t because they didn’t need to. This is even more fucked because it was probably avoidable.

    • NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are no red flag laws in Maine. There was no legal way to take his guns even if they thought that was necessary. Also, the christofacist supreme court is set to strike down laws that prevent people convicted domestic violence from owning guns, which will chip away at the legality of red flag laws everywhere. Happy Thursday everyone!

            • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              People get wrapped around the axle about this. If you don’t know the military doesn’t turn you into John Wick. Most people in the military have never been issued a gun outside of qual, but all are given a bare minimum level of training just in case things got dire.

              Annual (if that) weapons training is basically “don’t tk your buddies 101” a bit of shooting to prove you can and cleaning after. You only get more if direct combat is your actual job, or will be soon.

              Just like anything else if you want to get good you have to put in some effort on your own time.

              • Schmuppes@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I read your reply as “He was a weapons instructor and therefore cannot burn a fuse and go on a psychotic rampage”. I believe that is what the exchange was about before you replied. The question people are asking is “Why did he have guns” and not “How was he trained to use them”.

                • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not what I’m saying. He had a pretty good “why” for having easy access to weapons until he was checked into a mental institution. If he was a danger to himself or others I bet they could have prevented him from getting weapons. I’m interested to see why they chose not to or how their attempts failed.

                  I admit it was a deviation from the subject and might have been confusing. Every time this guy’s background is brought up people tend to think military training is some forbidden knowledge that citizens don’t have access to, which isn’t the case at all.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you seriously just skating right by the due process issues underlying that particular case?

        Also… christofascist? Nice.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost all mass shootings were avoidable if that government really cared about solving this problem