Mass shooting at FedEx facility in Indy

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The point a rich man may have once owned a canon is no more relevant today than the fact a T-Rex once existed in discussing today's dangerous weapons. If I supplied you with a canon from 1776 and Ranger with his weapon from his Army days, he will win 100 out of 100 times.

It is relevant if you want to interpret the meaning of the Constitutional phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It would be very difficult to argue that the Founders/drafters of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to prohibit the ownership of cannons and armed ships. To the contrary, they knew people who owned them and loaned/sold them to the government. Privateers were encouraged to get them some cannon - especially by stealing some from the Limeys. But there were no laws against such ownership.

Here is an inneresting article about "small arms" at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia - and what happened when the Brits tried to steal them away and prevent their use against the King's percevied tyranny:

Magazine

www.slaveryandremembrance.org

If I were trying to ban arms, I might use this history to suggest that "mutual aid and protection" was the purpose of early gun thinkingh. But ... eventually, SCOTUS says what laws mean and whether they are Constitutional. That's the deal.

 

[Stuffshot]

Indiana has had a Red Flag law since around 2005... It would seem that the FBI dropped the ball by not having him flagged when it came to a background check...

Why they (the FBI) would feel him enough of a threat to confiscate his shotgun last March yet not put him in some me sort of Denied Status when it came to his background check is inexplicable...

The seller would have no way of knowing the guy was a loon..., they're relying on the FBI to let them know...

Some of this doesn't relate entirely to your thoughts, but I found the statement by the shooter's family totally lacking as well, so there's no reason to rely on the families of gunloving nutjobs to police their own genetic nutjobs:

"We are devastated at the loss of life caused as a result of Brandon’s actions; through the love of his family, we tried to get him the help he needed. Our sincerest and most heartfelt apologies go out to the victims of this senseless tragedy. We are so sorry for the pain and hurt being felt by their families and the entire Indianapolis community."

Mass shooting at Indianapolis FedEx facility leaves 8 dead; suspect had 2 rifles he purchased legally

Police said the 19-year-old shooter took his own life and there is no further threat to the community.

www.wthr.com

What bullshit. The family knows him better than anyone else. This part of the statement stops short of saying the family was ever concerned at all about public safety: "through the love of his family, we tried to get him the help he needed." That says they were only motivated by "the love of family." They could have at least claimed they were concerned about everyone else, not just him (even if they really didn't mean it). But they didn't, because they weren't.

Keep in mind the shooter's family themselves called police last year to say they thought this gunlover nutjob wanted to commit suicide by cop. The police confiscated and did not return Hole's shotgun. That's unusual and serious. The family had reason to know he was still a danger this year but did nothing.

The family statement could have said "we were concerned our relative seemed like he might shoot total strangers as well as himself" but they didn't, because they weren't. All they said they cared about before the shooting was "the love of family" and then, of course, after the shooting, offered their "sincerest and most heartfelt apologies." What total bullshit.

And where, based on the fact the family called the police on this nutjob last year, do they get off saying they only "tried" to get help this year? They knew he was dangerous and owed it to the rest of us to do something meaningful about it. But they didn't -- they only say they "tried" to get help for him (which means even less that their "sincerest and most heartfelt apologies").

I know I'm a little harsh here, but if I'm being asked to have sympathies for somebody, my sympathies definitely rest 100% with the victims and 0% with the families of the shooter who were in a far better position to know what he is like but still release a bullshit statement that seems to claim they were surprised and not responsible. I don't automatically exonerate them. Not one little bit.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't disagree with that premise..., and evidently most of the people of the state of Indiana don't either, hence our Red Flag law being in existence...

Where things do get concerning to lawful firearm owners in regard to that law is if and when one political party or another decides to try to find a way to weaponize it and use it to confiscate firearms from those who otherwise should be allowed to keep them...

Seems like all you would need is an inlaw or a neighbor who hated you to make your life more than a little complicated if that was their desire...

There should be a mechanism of punishment for filing a false report. Now, how all that becomes tricky in he said-she said. But we have to deal with those all the time anyway.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

So you are not a natural law/God handed down our rights person. You accept they flow from, and consist of, what is in the Constitution.

Yes and no.

Its obvious the Founders intened the Constitution to protect the rights they put in there. But the 9th Amendment makes it clear THEIR list was not exclusive. ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

For example, they also indicated they believed the rights endowed on us by the Creator "included" "among them" "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Those aren't enumerated either. What do they mean in the entirety?

Hasn't been decided.

Generally, I am distrustful of government - because they are operated by people sick with and abusive of power. So I'm OK if the Constitution is interpreted to REQUIRE a pretty specific basis for a "right" be identified. Even though it gave that "pnumbral" crap legs to stand to stand on.

But ... right now, if you can get 274 people in the right place (218 in the House, 50 in the Senate and 1 in the White House which gives you the VP as # 51 in the Senate, and 5 on the SCOTUS) you can end this nation with your stupidity.

While power has been mvoing toward DC since Lincoln won the war, I prefer tobe able to march in locally and look a fool with a gavel in the eye - make sure they know the PEOPLE are watching.

So do all rights flow from the Constitution alone? I'll have to say "no". But the ones that don't won't get you out of jail.

 

[Stuffshot]

I don't disagree with that premise..., and evidently most of the people of the state of Indiana don't either, hence our Red Flag law being in existence...

Where things do get concerning to lawful firearm owners in regard to that law is if and when one political party or another decides to try to find a way to weaponize it and use it to confiscate firearms from those who otherwise should be allowed to keep them...

Seems like all you would need is an inlaw or a neighbor who hated you to make your life more than a little complicated if that was their desire...

Your last paragraph is not wrong, but that same problem already exists and is already addressed in other aspects of the law.

All of us (right now) could stand on an overpass and falsely claim on our cell phones that we see a red pickup truck driving drunk on the highway, and the police downstream would respond as expected towards the driver and eventually the situation would be resolved.

The fear of false reporting by "an inlaw or a neighbor who hated you" is nothing new and ultimately will not trump the public's legitimate concerns about largely-unrestricted gun laws that contribute to mass shootings.

 

[Spartans9312]

Thank you for the article. I know a lot of gun owners, I don't care that they own guns. The battle one I see is only slightly on which guns, but really centers on who. How can we make laws better to stop crazies from buying guns. Every crazy that buys then uses a gun creates a problem for their victims. But also for legitimate gun owners.

Sooner or later the numbers demanding more action will get so large they cannot be stopped. So in my mind legitimate gun owners should share this concern about crazies.

You aknowledge a mistake was made. And it might be all that is needed is better training. If he was sane, weapon 1 should have either never been confiscated or returned. If he was not sane, he should not have been able to buy more guns. I thought until today most would agree with that.

My question is: Who decides that someone is crazy?
Does it take a diagnosis of schizophrenia (most definitely crazy) or does someone being prescribed Lexapro fall into the crazy category?

 

[Spartans9312]

Some of this doesn't relate entirely to your thoughts, but I found the statement by the shooter's family totally lacking as well, so there's no reason to rely on the families of gunloving nutjobs to police their own genetic nutjobs:

"We are devastated at the loss of life caused as a result of Brandon’s actions; through the love of his family, we tried to get him the help he needed. Our sincerest and most heartfelt apologies go out to the victims of this senseless tragedy. We are so sorry for the pain and hurt being felt by their families and the entire Indianapolis community."

Mass shooting at Indianapolis FedEx facility leaves 8 dead; suspect had 2 rifles he purchased legally

Police said the 19-year-old shooter took his own life and there is no further threat to the community.

www.wthr.com

What bullshit. The family knows him better than anyone else. This part of the statement stops short of saying the family was ever concerned at all about public safety: "through the love of his family, we tried to get him the help he needed." That says they were only motivated by "the love of family." They could have at least claimed they were concerned about everyone else, not just him (even if they really didn't mean it). But they didn't, because they weren't.

Keep in mind the shooter's family themselves called police last year to say they thought this gunlover nutjob wanted to commit suicide by cop. The police confiscated and did not return Hole's shotgun. That's unusual and serious. The family had reason to know he was still a danger this year but did nothing.

The family statement could have said "we were concerned our relative seemed like he might shoot total strangers as well as himself" but they didn't, because they weren't. All they said they cared about before the shooting was "the love of family" and then, of course, after the shooting, offered their "sincerest and most heartfelt apologies." What total bullshit.

And where, based on the fact the family called the police on this nutjob last year, do they get off saying they only "tried" to get help this year? They knew he was dangerous and owed it to the rest of us to do something meaningful about it. But they didn't -- they only say they "tried" to get help for him (which means even less that their "sincerest and most heartfelt apologies").

I know I'm a little harsh here, but if I'm being asked to have sympathies for somebody, my sympathies definitely rest 100% with the victims and 0% with the families of the shooter who were in a far better position to know what he is like but still release a bullshit statement that seems to claim they were surprised and not responsible. I don't automatically exonerate them. Not one little bit.

Should the family have just put a bullet in him?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

My question is: Who decides that someone is crazy?
Does it take a diagnosis of schizophrenia (most definitely crazy) or does someone being prescribed Lexapro fall into the crazy category?

That is a question I am not competent to answer. I would say people who threaten to use guns fall into that category. I am sure others do as well.

And frankly crazy is not the right word but mass murderers deserve denigration. CO mentions Hassan. I have not followed his case to know what he said and did before Ft Hood. But if he was a risk he should have lost the right even if not crazy but an Islamic terrorist.

 

[Spartans9312]

That is a question I am not competent to answer. I would say people who threaten to use guns fall into that category. I am sure others do as well.

And frankly crazy is not the right word but mass murderers deserve denigration. CO mentions Hassan. I have not followed his case to know what he said and did before Ft Hood. But if he was a risk he should have lost the right even if not crazy but an Islamic terrorist.

Ok. People that threaten to use guns fall into that category. I agree. But it can't be a he said/she said instance. If it's a minor then the parents word works for me.
It's a tough needle to thread.

 

[NPT]

People are just plain dumb with money, period. And it's not just the poor or uneducated.

That is so true. With some no matter how much they make they live paycheck to paycheck.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

My question is: Who decides that someone is crazy?
Does it take a diagnosis of schizophrenia (most definitely crazy) or does someone being prescribed Lexapro fall into the crazy category?

I recently listened to WAAAAAY too much of the trial and psychiatric interviews of the grad student who shot up the movie theater in Denver in 2012.

He told his shrinks (multiple - because his first one at Student Health brought in help) that he had repeatedly fantasized about committing a mass killing. They did not institutionalize him or report him to law enforcement because he did not claim CURRENT and IMMEDIATE desires to do it (he lied - he was already planning and had been buying weapons for many weeks).

He had decided there was no God, that all human life was meaningless, that before and after death was merely and endless sleep state, so nobody should really care about getting killed, but he could still increase his human value and make his depressed self feel better about himself by "taking" lives and "acquiring" their human value (i.e. if he killed 11, he would be "worth" 12.)

The jury rejected his claim of not guilty by reason of insanity, but sentenced him to life instead of death.

No question he knew right from wrong, could form intent, and could understand and aid in his court proceedings. (Colorado law/standards for insanity pleas.)

He shoulda been in a hospital. Instead he was in grad school studying neuroscience, trying to figure out what was wrong with himself.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That is so true. With some no matter how much they make they live paycheck to paycheck.

There are people with millions in assets and millions more in debt.

And there are even people who believe conspicuous consumption is a religious duty.

And of course there are people who know they are not out of money because they have checks left.

Many years ago I read a book where a survey question asked if people would rather make X but be the poorest among friends or make Y (less money) and be the wealthiest in the circle. Most people opted for Y.

I sort of know the feeling, my college friends were wildly successful. They have much nicer homes, routinely vacation to Europe or Asia. They take the upscale cruises. Pre-Covid we would get together several times a year. On occasion it just doesn't feel like I belong. And I do not make bad money especially for Indiana.

Much of our economy and culture is built on keeping up with the Joneses. That does not equate to healthy monetary practices.

 

[Stuffshot]

It is relevant if you want to interpret the meaning of the Constitutional phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It would be very difficult to argue that the Founders/drafters of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to prohibit the ownership of cannons and armed ships. To the contrary, they knew people who owned them and loaned/sold them to the government. Privateers were encouraged to get them some cannon - especially by stealing some from the Limeys. But there were no laws against such ownership.

Here is an inneresting article about "small arms" at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia - and what happened when the Brits tried to steal them away and prevent their use against the King's percevied tyranny:

Magazine

www.slaveryandremembrance.org

If I were trying to ban arms, I might use this history to suggest that "mutual aid and protection" was the purpose of early gun thinkingh. But ... eventually, SCOTUS says what laws mean and whether they are Constitutional. That's the deal.

And, does the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment say anything about personal protection?

 

[UncleMark]

I sort of know the feeling, my college friends were wildly successful. They have much nicer homes, routinely vacation to Europe or Asia. They take the upscale cruises. Pre-Covid we would get together several times a year. On occasion it just doesn't feel like I belong. And I do not make bad money especially for Indiana.

You need to find a lower class of friends.

 

[Stuffshot]

Should the family have just put a bullet in him?

That question is out of the blue for dramatic effect, right?

I think the family probably had enough to go on to say they feared their troubled offspring/ sibling/relative was showing signs of wanting to shoot his big fearsome phallic guns into strangers to make some sort of irrational unknown point about politics or self worth or frustration about the weather or something.

Here's who he is:

https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/NA-Brandon-Scott-Hole-1.jpg

Tell the truth -- doesn't he look exactly like the kind of high-performance absolutely-successful individual (with a love for guns) that you knew he would be?

 

[UncleMark]

Some of this doesn't relate entirely to your thoughts, but I found the statement by the shooter's family totally lacking as well, so there's no reason to rely on the families of gunloving nutjobs to police their own genetic nutjobs:

"We are devastated at the loss of life caused as a result of Brandon’s actions; through the love of his family, we tried to get him the help he needed. Our sincerest and most heartfelt apologies go out to the victims of this senseless tragedy. We are so sorry for the pain and hurt being felt by their families and the entire Indianapolis community."

Mass shooting at Indianapolis FedEx facility leaves 8 dead; suspect had 2 rifles he purchased legally

Police said the 19-year-old shooter took his own life and there is no further threat to the community.

www.wthr.com

What bullshit. The family knows him better than anyone else. This part of the statement stops short of saying the family was ever concerned at all about public safety: "through the love of his family, we tried to get him the help he needed." That says they were only motivated by "the love of family." They could have at least claimed they were concerned about everyone else, not just him (even if they really didn't mean it). But they didn't, because they weren't.

Keep in mind the shooter's family themselves called police last year to say they thought this gunlover nutjob wanted to commit suicide by cop. The police confiscated and did not return Hole's shotgun. That's unusual and serious. The family had reason to know he was still a danger this year but did nothing.

The family statement could have said "we were concerned our relative seemed like he might shoot total strangers as well as himself" but they didn't, because they weren't. All they said they cared about before the shooting was "the love of family" and then, of course, after the shooting, offered their "sincerest and most heartfelt apologies." What total bullshit.

And where, based on the fact the family called the police on this nutjob last year, do they get off saying they only "tried" to get help this year? They knew he was dangerous and owed it to the rest of us to do something meaningful about it. But they didn't -- they only say they "tried" to get help for him (which means even less that their "sincerest and most heartfelt apologies").

I know I'm a little harsh here, but if I'm being asked to have sympathies for somebody, my sympathies definitely rest 100% with the victims and 0% with the families of the shooter who were in a far better position to know what he is like but still release a bullshit statement that seems to claim they were surprised and not responsible. I don't automatically exonerate them. Not one little bit.

Dude, this whole rant on the family is out of line. Step back.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Should the family have just put a bullet in him?

He’s not worth responding to. On any subject. Guy is a tunnel vision brainwashed moron

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

And, does the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment say anything about personal protection?

I'm not sure.

Is there any way we could look it up?

Any Coolerites in DC who could drop by the White House and look it up? Take notes or a picture maybe? (Make sure its a leftie - Uncle Ho wouldn't let ME in.)

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You need to find a lower class of friends.

That is why they have me, to regress the group to the mean.

 

[mcmurtry66]

My question is: Who decides that someone is crazy?
Does it take a diagnosis of schizophrenia (most definitely crazy) or does someone being prescribed Lexapro fall into the crazy category?

In Fla it’s called the baker act. Can be held involuntarily up to 72 hours for an eval. I’m sure all states have a version

 

[Stuffshot]

I'm not sure.

Is there any way we could look it up?

Any Coolerites in DC who could drop by the White House and look it up? Take notes or a picture maybe? (Make sure its a leftie - Uncle Ho wouldn't let ME in.)

Thought you were a lawyer and would know how to look it up. Never mind.

 

[UncleMark]

That is why they have me, to regress the group to the mean.

We could use you in my circle, pulling the other direction.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Thought you were a lawyer and would know how to look it up. Never mind.

I am a lawyer, but I’m also a pool-room smartass.

the answer is “no - the second amendment contains no words about self defense or personal protection”

then again, the Constitution doesn’t contain the word privacy either

watch out for them penum-bra’s

 

[UncleMark]

And, does the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment say anything about personal protection?

Gotta be some implied penumbra stuff in there somewhere.

 

[Stuffshot]

Ok. People that threaten to use guns fall into that category. I agree. But it can't be a he said/she said instance. If it's a minor then the parents word works for me.
It's a tough needle to thread.

As I mentioned in another thread, those pesky "he said/she said" questions appear all the time in various legal proceedings. There are already established ways to resolve disagreements between witnesses. To claim that witness disagreements about gun threats fall into some other special category would be asking for an exemption from the normal procedures.

And since when does an ignorant parent's version of what a minor did or said about his guns trump all the other evidence? Isn't a parent among the last to know?

 

[mcmurtry66]

Gotta be some implied penumbra stuff in there somewhere.

Look at you go

 

[Stuffshot]

I am a lawyer, but I’m also a pool-room smartass.

the answer is “no - the second amendment contains no words about self defense or personal protection”

then again, the Constitution doesn’t contain the word privacy either

watch out for them penum-bra’s

Thanks.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I am a lawyer, but I’m also a pool-room smartass.

Sounds like someone who is bucking for the position of WC "Head Boob".

 

[Stuffshot]

Gotta be some implied penumbra stuff in there somewhere.

Well, MTIOTF spells it penum-bra, so I got sidetracked.

Nonetheless, I think that "penumbra" analysis originated only in Griswold v Connecticut, but I've never figured out what Tom Griswold has to do with it.

 

[UncleMark]

Sounds like someone who is bucking for the position of WC "Head Boob".

Would I be allowed to delete his posts if he was?

 

[Spartans9312]

That question is out of the blue for dramatic effect, right?

I think the family probably had enough to go on to say they feared their troubled offspring/ sibling/relative was showing signs of wanting to shoot his big fearsome phallic guns into strangers to make some sort of irrational unknown point about politics or self worth or frustration about the weather or something.

Here's who he is:

https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2021/04/NA-Brandon-Scott-Hole-1.jpg

Tell the truth -- doesn't he look exactly like the kind of high-performance absolutely-successful individual (with a love for guns) that you knew he would be?

First of all. You have no solution.
Secondly, we are going to now judge folks by their appearance?
Yep, you're out of bounds and in over your head

 

[Spartans9312]

In Fla it’s called the baker act. Can be held involuntarily up to 72 hours for an eval. I’m sure all states have a version

I'm sure you're correct. When it comes time to say who and who not can own a firearm there really needs to be no gray area.

 

[Stuffshot]

Dude, this whole rant on the family is out of line. Step back.

If they're innocent, then of course I would back off.

It''s possible the family did more to thwart this than it now appears. But it doesn't look that way yet. They released a BS statement that, well, you or I could have released for all it says.

Remember, they were so concerned last year they reported this guy to the police, and it didn't bring him under control. We still don't know whether they reported him this year or not, but their statement doesn't claim this is the case.

 

[Spartans9312]

As I mentioned in another thread, those pesky "he said/she said" questions appear all the time in various legal proceedings. There are already established ways to resolve disagreements between witnesses. To claim that witness disagreements about gun threats fall into some other special category would be asking for an exemption from the normal procedures.

And since when does an ignorant parent's version of what a minor did or said about his guns trump all the other evidence? Isn't a parent among the last to know?

I thought we were taking the parents word in this case that their kid wanted to commit suicide by cop?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I'm sure you're correct. When it comes time to say who and who not can own a firearm there really needs to be no gray area.

I don’t know how they work. But maybe with the purchasing process being more difficult there’s more time for an intervention or the impulse to pass. I always think of homer’s line in response to the Brady bill and having to wait 5 days for his gun purchase: But I’m mad now!

Have to think with 300 mil guns already in circulation if a guy wants one badly enough he’ll get one regardless of any reforms.

I don’t know.

 

[Stuffshot]

I thought we were taking the parents word in this case that their kid wanted to commit suicide by cop?

That's what the family reported to police last year. The police kept his shotgun at that time.

Ask yourself: how did the family know this (last year)? Did he tell them? Did they see or read something of his? By him? Did they see signs?

Aren't you even more curious what the family knew about him and his guns this year? I haven't even seen a report so far that clarifies whether he was living with his parents after getting fired by Fedex. Were his new guns shipped to or stored at his parents house? I haven't seen an account yet that clarifies that point.

Historically, loved ones of some of the past mass shooters had some knowledge of the shooters' activities. I'm not unreasonable to be skeptical of what the family statement says while at the same time avoids talking about other obvious matters.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t know how they work. But maybe with the purchasing process being more difficult there’s more time for an intervention or the impulse to pass. I always think of homer’s line in response to the Brady bill and having to wait 5 days for his gun purchase: But I’m mad now!

Have to think with 300 mil guns already in circulation if a guy wants one badly enough he’ll get one regardless of any reforms.

I don’t know.

I agree people can get one from illegal means. But think about assassins. How often do we read that a person was caught trying to hire someone to kill somebody.

If guns were a little harder to get, we would catch at least some wrongdoers advertising on Craigslist.

 

[Stuffshot]

First of all. You have no solution.
Secondly, we are going to now judge folks by their appearance?
Yep, you're out of bounds and in over your head

So, what is your solution?

And I hope we never judge someone by his appearance.

 

[Spartans9312]

So, what is your solution?

And I hope we never judge someone by his appearance.

I'm not sure there is a magic bullet so to speak.
I'm somewhat supportive of Ranger's position that centerfire semi-auto long guns should be kept at a shooting range.
But I have this feeling that this wouldn't be the end game.
What's your recommendation?
BTW, weren't you judging someone by their appearance in your previous post?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Would I be allowed to delete his posts if he was?

You would outrank him.