After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

On September 24 the FBI was notified that a guy with the username, “nikolas cruz.” made the comment on You Tube that: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter." Then on January 5, a person close to Cruz contacted the FBI to report concerns about him doing something like a schools shooting. So they knew that a guy named Nicolas Cruz wanted to be a school shooter, and that a person close to Cruz was concerned about him doing that very thing. So there was no mystery concerning who Nikolas Cruz was, as the person close to Cruz made that clear. According to your logic, as long as he didn't mention the time or place, then the law couldn't go talk to him about his written threat and public display of the means to carry out that threat.

 

Im not ready to blame AR15s or use them as a scape goat. Or 30 round mags.

 

Nope

 

Sure. What you're saying is that, until someone commits a crime, there is no evidence of a crime. That's true of every crime. However, you're forgetting again that a written or verbal threat to kill or do bodily harm is a felony. Therefore, Cruz committed a felony. So now that we've cleared that up again, let's look at your other assumption. As far as not being able to locate him, you should read up on how IP addresses work. If a person was doing something illegal online, like threatening to shoot kids in school for instance, the FBI can ask for legal permission to contact the internet service provider and have them provide that account holder's name and address. They failed to do so, and they've admitted as much.

And here is the whole story concerning the person who knew Cruz and called the FBI:

Not only did the January caller to the FBI warn about violent behavior, but she said she was specifically concerned about Cruz shooting students at his former school.

"He's [been] thrown out [of] all these schools because he would pick up a chair and just throw it at somebody, a teacher or a student because he didn't like the way they were talking to him," she said. "I just think about you know, [him] getting into a school and just shooting the place up."

Her main concern, according to the transcript, were pictures and threats Cruz posted on multiple Instagram accounts, including weapons and dead animals that he would cut open.

"If you go into his Instagram pages, you'll see all the guns," she said. "On the Instagram he said, 'I want to kill people.'"

The caller referred to Cruz as being confused, sometimes dressing up "like a ninja or a-a-a- ISIS guy."

"Tell you how confused he is, he's got the Make America Great Again hat on," she said about one of his Instagram posts. "And his face is all covered with a scarf."

She also alleged that he was using money from his deceased adopted mother's account to buy ammunition and weapons.

"He took the money out, the social security money out, and he took it and he bought all these rifles and ammunition and he posted pictures of them on the Instragram," the caller said, adding that Cruz was expected to receive money after his adopted mother's death. "The main concern is also when he gets his $25,000, he's not going to give it to this man to invest. He's going to buy guns."

The unidentified woman added she had called local police in the past, and that she felt she needed to contact someone about Cruz and his social media posts.

"I didn't know whether to call you or Homeland Security or who, but like, like I said, um, when you look into this, you can make the decision as to whether you want to go further or not," she said, according to the transcript. "I just want to, you know, get it off my chest in case something does happen and I do believe something's going to happen."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Now, do you really believe that after this woman called and tipped off the FBI about Nikolas Cruz, they didn't know where she was from or who she was talking about?

 

Everything I posted is not what you said!

A verbal or written threat to kill or do bodily harm is a felony. The FBI was directed to proof of that threat and of the name on the You Tube account. That was the evidence they needed to get the subpoena. The later tip they received from the caller who knew Cruz is proof that they knew who and where he was. She directed them to his disturbing Instagram posts which showed, among other things, his arsenal. So they had his written threat to kill school kids, and they had the tip from someone else who knew him.

According to the FBI, The information should have been assessed as a "potential threat to life," the bureau said. The FBI failed to act on a tip about Nikolas Cruz, the confessed shooter in the Parkland, Florida, school massacre, the bureau said in a statement on Friday. Do understand what they mean?

 

Man you ain't gonna learn. No matter what you say, you will be the one wrong. Its how they resist. It's how this country has seen its decline. Right and wrong are always gonna be arguable until you just get tired and give up. Silence to them is a victory. Even if it means we just stop listening.

 

Very perceptive.

 

I agree. Its amazing what they can come up with from what is said to them.

 

.

 

Lets ban fast food. Its negative virtues out weigh its positive. Heart disease and diabetes

 

The difference between guns, burgers, cars, or anything else that can kill you is that the gun's purpose is to kill. A car's purpose is to transport you. A knife's purpose is to cut even if those can be misused. So the gun will always be a greater public safety risk. You consider your reason to kill to be better than a mass shooters but even now the argument for owning is a gun "who knows who I may have to kill one day if they oppress me". That is why the public is not comfortable with that mindset.

 

Tell that to MeAgain who brought up DDT. Not me, Im just replying to her/him/it.

 

Define "oppress."

 

How are you defining "the public" in this? On its face it sounds like a whole lot of people, but is it really? Seems like something more accurate is called for here.

 

DDT was never suggested to be a right to own. It's an exclusive weapon of war designed to kill. A Ar-15 is also a weapon of war. All this hunting nonsense is not true. Like most guns sure you can hunt with it. But the reason it's appealing to people who need to fight the goverment is that it is an effective weapon of war. It's very close to what a solider would be given. It's one one of the easiest to use and close guns there is. Anyone can fire it, it's works, It's relatively affordable for someone serious about guns, and it's accurate. But most importantly with bump stocks and things like that you get around current laws on guns to make the gun more than it is. To make it fire in a way the goverment would currently only allow on grandfathered guns that cost a lot to own. Guns that actuly have a pretty strong background check and cost of owning. So when the revolution comes you will be ready. And you do because it's your right.

 

Most gun owners would probably say something like taking away the first amendment or the second. But lately they seem to be planning a fight with other Americans and not a dictatorship. Because they believe that anyone who does not support the current goverment needs to die. They are enemies so thy are ironically becoming part of the tyranny. Not every gun owner but politics are becoming very intense. For example this news story. Maybe they just wanted to open carry and counter protest. A poor place to do it but it is also very possible they planned a mass shooting against anti-gun people. If so at least some gun owners are willing to take it that level. Many make similar theats that they will kill you before you they let you take guns. Who knows how far each ones takes it. Each gun owner is an their own person.
Couple arrested with weapons amid Boston March For Our Lives protest | Daily Mail Online

Public is the majority of the American public. Most do not own guns, many that do are not even like the NRA. Because they just like hunting and they are fine with some changes in the law that might affect the second amendment. But only because there will finaly be a line drawn in the sand saying that the right is not unlimited. So they know they don't really need an Ar-15 to hunt and if they need to fight Uncle Sam they are still ready.

 

People actually do hunt with it. You seem to believe that you can police the thoughts of gun owners, telling them not only why something appeals to them, but also condemning their preference based on your assessment of that preference.

 

Still sounds a lot more like an opinion than a flat fact. You also seem to be summing up gun owners into a very small number of categories. As for the NRA, I'm not a member nor do I know any members. Oddly enough though, no NRA members have been even accused of mass shootings.

I'm all for discussing these issues, but settling on only a few possible causes doesn't seem like proper research. Seems more like an agenda gathering only the facts that support the agenda. Kind of like all those people who hate" Fox News while proudly proclaiming they never watch it. Personally, I watch more news services that I don't like than the ones I do. Keeps me current, and honest in my opinions.