DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass shooting Lewiston Maine

At least 16 dead, 50 to 60 injured.
Multiple locations including bowling alley, Walmart distribution center, rec center.

Pic on twitter of subject with long AR type gun with large magazine

They still haven’t caught the guy yet.

It’s a very nice rifle he has in that security cam footage…

Police are en route to a boat dock in Lisbon, Maine. Vehicle matching description is there-setting up a perimeter. No word if a subject is at the vehicle

There was a kids event at the bowling alley tonight.

Scanner just put out a bulletin for a second shooter vehicle- a black pickup truck

I was just in Portland a few weeks ago.

They should have taken him more seriously when he threatened to shoot up the guard base. He also had multiple mental issues.

These govt agencies need to have their weapons taken from them until they are mentally cleared. Especially, when they threaten to shoot people.

Do I understand you correctly, you want those in the government to have their weapons taken away?

Anyway, I'm sure those in the republican NRA party will send their thoughts and prayers.

Correct. People with mental health issues or who threaten to shoot up a place should not be allowed to own a gun... until they are deemed safe.

Ban all GOPer guns!

So how do you determine someone will have a mental breakdown before they have a mental breakdown? I mean in this case it should have been prevented. And we hear how that should fix everything if we only improve our mental healthcare system. But while that's easy to say, it isn't so easy to do. What criteria do you use to determine that? Do you wait until someone is so mentally ill that they have to be involuntarily locked up before you take their guns? What if they are actually that sick and nobody in their family had them committed? That's a very gray area that a lot of gun owners, including myself have concerns about. What if someone is depressed and taking medication for it? Is that enough reason to take their guns? If they have severe anxiety, is that enough reason to take their guns?

Then you have the problem of actually getting lawmakers fund a rebuilding of the mental healthcare system and have it available to all. We know how difficult that's going to be to accomplish. So while on the surface I agree with what you're saying in theory, the details are far more complicated when one thinks about how we manage to get to the end results.

Not really on topic, but there is a case coming to the Supreme Court about those found guilty of Domestic Violence not being able to own a gun. I guess there is a law from a state that is under dispute.

It is just sad.

People are dead, dying and injured and all you people can do is make this tragedy into a political issue?

Heartless!

It's only about politics when trying to find a solution. Yesterday the new speaker of the house said this isn't the time to address this issue. OK,, when is?

I believe in the second amendment. But no way do I think a person with a mental problem or a criminal record should be allowed to own a gun. ANY GUN. I do believe in enhanced background checks in an attempt to identify those with Criminal records or mental issues.

The only way to address those issues is through politics. What would you have us do.... Ignore it?

Ahh, mental health, not domestic terrorism.

Dude is definitely suicidal and his body will be found eventually. And either way, allowing kooks like this easy access to firearms is also suicidal.

We hear that same empty rhetoric every time somebody tries to find a solution. Trying to find a way to stop, or at least minimize such mass shootings seems like something we should all want to accomplish. Or should people stay silent about that as this continues to happen over and over and over again? To me, even suggesting that is what's heartless.

Perfect.

Saved the state $100,000+ and saved a bunch of extra needless grief for the families.

Burn in hell, scumbag.

He got want he wanted. Mass murder, fear, and dodged any real world accountability for his actions.

I just don't believe the government would tell society the truth.

So if they are saying what happened is "this", then I say prove it. Prove it prove it prove it. Otherwise it's what? Just telling people what they want to hear? or is it just projecting the reality they can force, the one they can force to be if they are powerful enough to force, inasmuch as they remain powerful enough to force you to believe what they say is real, beyond evidence.

I think when it comes to what the evidence shows, that if in times past there have been mostly lies, about a ton of different subjects then, whatever the authorities tell society happened, then hey, hold it up in front of the camera and put it right in our face, because
well because it would be easy to and because they haven't been truthful to what the evidence appears in times past.

Of course we can't believe the JFK asas ination footage, and that was filmed. They got bin laden or Hussen but they dumped his body at sea. At sea? C'mon,

Like I said above, allowing kooks easy access to firearms is a suicidal tendency. We’re playing Russian roulette with armed lunatics.

You have spoken before about your guns. (and, dem's ought to arm themselves).

How does anyone know that tomorrow, or next month, you'll go off the deep end?

The problem of someone going off is not about to change.

The problem of allowing them to use a weapon that can fire a round a second for a 30 to 100 rounds can change.

Time and magazine size can limit the damage.

Thoughts and prayers will take of it.

I'm pretty much convinced that the NRA does NOT want to find a solution. The more this happens, the more the word comes down that it will only get worse. The worse it gets the more guns are sold. And the NRA, funded by the gun makers want it that way.

Coming from someone who already has that's hilarious.

How have I gone off?

The question I asked is a legit one. Take your name out of it if it makes you feel better. Use "Joe Smith" as the example if you want.

Nobody knows when someone may go off the deep end. But people certainly do. As I have posted before, there are ways to stop some or most of them before it happens. But the system in place often times doesn't allow for that. The public at large doesn't always know about an individual that has gone off the deep end, but in many of those situations their family and close friends do. So a red flag law to allow them to petition the court to take their firearms until such time as they have gotten treatment and rectified the problem would be a good place to start. But currently many states refuse to pass one.

On the surface I like the idea of red flag laws. But as a gun owner I can see how such a law could be abused and may be in some states. So it's with much caution that I suggest such a thing. As of now someone who is accused of not being able to have a gun under red flag laws has the right to defend themself in court and it seems like a positive step in the right direction. We have to start somewhere. The status quo can not be accepted.

You can stop things like the gun show loophole or simply buying firearms from individuals which require no background checks involved. In both of these circumstances it prevents convicted felons and those with documented mental illnesses from purchasing guns so easily.

Now I have heard the argument before that this won't "solve the problem". And no, none of these things will stop the problem. But they will help. They will slow down the problem. I've always considered less corpses a good thing.

I suggest if you want to have a discussion you not start out by making it personal. As you can see, when you take that part out of the equation I'm more than happy to discuss a topic.

If there is one certainty, it is that the status quo is not acceptable.

Fair enough. I apologize for using "you" as the example. In doing so, you took it as "YOU", and not Jon Doe.

Now please explain how I could take that as you referring to someone other than me arch? Are you seriously going to try and play that game?

I don't play games. I don't move goalposts. I apologized for saying "you". And? You're pitting again. So much for conversation and discussion with you.

Once again explain how you were referring to anyone but me when you posted this.......


For someone who claims they don't move the goal posts, you just did.

Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to address what you were doing. I expect you to keep blaming me for it by claiming I took it out of context. You know, by moving the goal post ,like this....


Much like you're arching again. You say something obviously referring to me and then claim somehow that I'm the one who assumed you were talking about me. Of course I took it as you were talking about me. Because you were talking about me.

But I do certainly understand why you would now wish to stop talking about that.

Tots and pears

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Jc

Damn our society sure did move on from this shooting real quick.

We’ve officially become desensitized to tragedy in this country, and have been successfully groomed into accepting this reality.