Robert Card (Maine Mass Shooter) Case Analysis

[Ben Waylin]

"Robert Card"

They should have just gone with "Mark Ultra".

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Its absolutely not the same at all, I'm as pro 2A as they come and never at all been of the opinion that fewer guns= less crime. My point is those of us who do own guns our whole lives and never did anything illegal with them genuinely feel that criminals should not have guns legally. I think you would find a huge supporting consensus for that among gun owners. I carry every day, shoot competitively, own Class III items and am as involved in the pro gun community as one could be. I shoot with people from several states out at the facility we shoot at and I don't know anyone who thinks convicted felons should be able to re-aquire their 2A rights once they serve their time. Out of hundreds of 2A people Ive met over the years your the first one Ive ever heard say that.
Now I do agree with some of your other points, actually almost all of them, and there are probably more people that think that and I'm just not aware of it, But honestly I think no convicted felons should ever legally get guns again..
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Make no mistake- The incremental changes in our gun rights have already taken a toll, they are not going to give up, but if we really insist that people who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy with weapons be able to still legally get them after doing time, people who don't know anything about gun stuff will see that as crazy talk. I feel we have a responsibility to cull evildoers from the ranks of those who have done everything the right way their whole lives when it comes to firearms.
Just seems like the responsible path forward

I’m curious, is much of gun violence, specifically mass casualties, but I guess in general as well, done by registered gun owners?
Some of what I talk about with personal responsibility is not just stay out of trouble enough to obtain a license, but current gun owner’s responsibility to keep their weapons safe.

When a kid goes in and shoots up his school is it more likely he got it from some back alley deal, or snagged it from a friend or family he know had a gun?

Admittedly, I’d consider most every gun owner I know to be responsible, but there is seemingly a breakdown somewhere.

Obviously I’m far from pro gun, but I’m certainly not in the mindset of banning them either. (Id love to see it, but I don’t think it’s reasonable).

I just feel there has to be many ways to create a safer country that doesn’t involve taking all guns away, or giving everyone one

 

[Bad Brain]

They should have just gone with "Mark Ultra".

So is there more to this story apart from the weird “Failures” of investigating obvious red flags?

 

[Bad Brain]

I just feel there has to be many ways to create a safer country that doesn’t involve taking all guns away, or giving everyone one

Can you explain why you feel that guns are the problem? I mean I know that people are using them to kill people, but is it that you think if it wasn't so "Easy," less people would be committing these crimes? (I Don't think it would be "easy" for most people, guns or not!). Have you ever looked at the link between psychotropics and violence? Most, if not all of these people are on SSRI's.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Can you explain why you feel that guns are the problem? I mean I know that people are using them to kill people, but is it that you think if it wasn't so "Easy," less people would be committing these crimes? (I Don't think it would be "easy" for most people, guns or not!). Have you ever looked at the link between psychotropics and violence? Most, if not all of these people are on SSRI's.

I just don’t think guns in civilian hands do any good. Guns are for killing. I personally don’t think anyone who’s job doesn’t require a gun, needs to be carrying a gun.

I get that they are part of our country and I get that some people are into them as a hobby or profession, so that is why I’m not upset that they are so prevalent, but I do believe less guns will create less gun crime (and more guns will create more gun crime).

I don’t trust the public to stop their vehicle at a crosswalk, nevermind trust them to carry a gun.

 

[JTyson]

You might be right from a strategic/political standpoint, but I don't really think so. I'm of the strong opinion that more guns = less crime, along the lines of "An armed society is a polite society." I'd think you'd recognize that armed individuals stop criminals! Consider if more people were armed -- even an armed criminal would be less inclined, at least to the extent they valued their life. Do you think that criminals care if they aren't legally allowed to buy a gun? FWIW I'm not involved in the 2A community, and am not particularly looking at the issue from a 2A/Constitutional standpoint, although that has informed my views. I look at the matter from a philosophical standpoint, with the primary conceptual rationale being that no one has a right to infringe on other's rights, including their right to buy what they want and defend themselves. I tend to think that much longer sentences for violent crime and especially repeated crime is the better option.

Why not?

Im not quite sure where the disconnect between us is, I absolutely think an armed society is a more polite society, Maybe the difference is I think we (law abiding citizens) should be more armed if we should desire to be, and criminals should be less.. Ive actually stopped criminals twice from going through with their intended actions at gunpoint, so yes, I get that completely, but because Ive had to go through that twice (so far) I can't get my hands around letting convicted criminals get guns legally. They get them illegally every day anyway due a myriad of reasons.
Now I do agree that longer sentences would be better, we are going in the opposite direction in a number of areas around the country, but in that train of thought, don't you think them knowing they would get those rights back after doing their time is less of a deterrent in the long run?

 

[Bad Brain]

I just don’t think guns in civilian hands do any good. Guns are for killing.

Have you considered the need for self-defense? What would you do if an invader came into your house in the middle of the night? Have you considered the unarmed civilian populations that have been killed by their governments over the course of history? Have you considered the possibility of a foreign invasion?

I do believe less guns will create less gun crime (and more guns will create more gun crime).

What's the evidence for this idea? Please don't just name a country without guns and low violence rates, as there are many factors involved, as I've mentioned, such as culture and values.

I don’t trust the public to stop their vehicle at a crosswalk, nevermind trust them to carry a gun.

I basically agree with you here, but I don't think getting rid of cars or guns is the answer.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Have you considered the need for self-defense? What would you do if an invader came into your house in the middle of the night? Have you considered the unarmed civilian populations that have been killed by their governments over the course of history? Have you considered the possibility of a foreign invasion?

What's the evidence for this idea? Please don't just name a country without guns and low violence rates as their are many factors involved, as I've mentioned, such as culture.

I basically agree with you here, but I don't think getting rid of cars or guns is the answer.

I’ve lived in areas with scary high crime rates but never felt the need for a gun. I see someone breaking in to my home to steal stuff as a possibility, but I don’t think I should take someone’s life for breaking in to my house.

Other countries are not my reason for thinking less guns equals less gun crime, but they are certainly a viable, real world representation of it. Crime may not go down with less guns, but gun crime surely would. Loss of life from guns would be less

 

[JTyson]

I just don’t think guns in civilian hands do any good. Guns are for killing. I personally don’t think anyone who’s job doesn’t require a gun, needs to be carrying a gun.

I get that they are part of our country and I get that some people are into them as a hobby or profession, so that is why I’m not upset that they are so prevalent, but I do believe less guns will create less gun crime (and more guns will create more gun crime).

I don’t trust the public to stop their vehicle at a crosswalk, nevermind trust them to carry a gun.

Ive carried guns for 40+ years. Had to pull it twice to stop an intended robbery while on the road in areas I work that the police don't even like to go.
I could have legally shot both of them, but didn't shoot either of them. I will give anyone a chance to choose not to get shot in the face provided I have the time to do that. So far its worked out. Most people that carry guns are not looking for a chance to shoot someone despite what a lot of people think. I work my ass off and have no intention of letting a punkass with a knife take my money.

Again, upwards of 250,000 times a year criminals are fended off with a firearm by a totally rational, normal person who was armed. Those are the FBI's own numbers. Most people have no idea its that many times a year. Does that make you feel any differently?

 

[JTyson]

You might be right from a strategic/political standpoint, but I don't really think so. I'm of the strong opinion that more guns = less crime, along the lines of "An armed society is a polite society." I'd think you'd recognize that armed individuals stop criminals! Consider if more people were armed -- even an armed criminal would be less inclined, at least to the extent they valued their life. Do you think that criminals care if they aren't legally allowed to buy a gun? FWIW I'm not involved in the 2A community, and am not particularly looking at the issue from a 2A/Constitutional standpoint, although that has informed my views. I look at the matter from a philosophical standpoint, with the primary conceptual rationale being that no one has a right to infringe on other's rights, including their right to buy what they want and defend themselves. I tend to think that much longer sentences for violent crime and especially repeated crime is the better option.

Why not?

Maybe this will make my train of thought clearer-
You stated no one has a right to infringe on someone else's rights, and people should be able to buy whatever they want to defend themselves.
Criminals, who mostly obtain guns to do evil to innocent people, rarely use them in a legal, defensive scenario, and make a choice to get weapons to commit crimes. Why should they ever be allowed to legally get those rights back? When you say "especially repeated crimes"
wouldn't you agree that makes my whole point?

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Ive carried guns for 40+ years. Had to pull it twice to stop an intended robbery while on the road in areas I work that the police don't even like to go.
I could have legally shot both of them, but didn't shoot either of them. I will give anyone a chance to choose not to get shot in the face provided I have the time to do that. So far its worked out. Most people that carry guns are not looking for a chance to shoot someone despite what a lot of people think. I work my ass off and have no intention of letting a punkass with a knife take my money.

Again, upwards of 250,000 times a year criminals are fended off with a firearm by a totally rational, normal person who was armed. Those are the FBI's own numbers. Most people have no idea its that many times a year. Does that make you feel any differently?

Not really, no. If a selling point of guns is that they stop other guns, the same logic says not having guns means you don’t need other guns. I also believe that non lethal methods of self defense could easily be adopted if there was the need/desire to do so.

It’s never going to be a perfect system. Most of my buddies hunt with guns and I couldn’t care less about it. I can’t wait for the meat to be honest. But then again if I woke up tomorrow and all guns were banned, I wouldn’t be upset one bit.

When I lived in PA I loved going target shooting at the range down the road. I was even contemplating getting a gun but then Sandy Hook happened and gun stuff got weird for a while.

 

[JTyson]

Not really, no. If a selling point of guns is that they stop other guns, the same logic says not having guns means you don’t need other guns. I also believe that non lethal methods of self defense could easily be adopted if there was the need/desire to do so.

It’s never going to be a perfect system. Most of my buddies hunt with guns and I couldn’t care less about it. I can’t wait for the meat to be honest. But then again if I woke up tomorrow and all guns were banned, I wouldn’t be upset one bit.

When I lived in PA I loved going target shooting at the range down the road. I was even contemplating getting a gun but then Sandy Hook happened and gun stuff got weird for a while.

Fair enough
I get completely that its a complex issue with a lot of variables. More than most people would consider.
You seem at least willing to discuss it, most non 2A people won't for a lot of different reasons.
We can certainly agree to disagree
My own personal experience working on the road has been somewhat different. I would never choose to be unable to defend myself, my family or anyone else I felt I needed to defend. And just an FYI, most non lethal means of self defense are only going to piss off a meth head who is gacked out and wants your money.... Sometimes 1 bullet won't do it either. Most if not all cops will confirm this

 

[Bad Brain]

Maybe this will make my train of thought clearer-
You stated no one has a right to infringe on someone else's rights, and people should be able to buy whatever they want to defend themselves.
Criminals, who mostly obtain guns to do evil to innocent people, rarely use them in a legal, defensive scenario, and make a choice to get weapons to commit crimes. Why should they ever be allowed to legally get those rights back? When you say "especially repeated crimes"
wouldn't you agree that makes my whole point?

I'll think about all this some more, but here's the problems I'm seeing:

1) Criminals are criminals before they get caught, and sometimes they never get caught. So only taking this "Right" after they get caught doesn't really address the issue of criminals having guns.

2) Criminals will get weapons regardless of whether they are legally allowed to own them. Only allowing some people reinforces the whole network of bureaucracy around getting a gun and makes the process harder for people that have never and will never commit a violent crime.

3) Withholding this "Right" makes it a privilege, which is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, IE either it's a right or not. I don't like idea of government doling out privileges, because it reinforces the idea that is their job.

4) Again, if a criminal is too dangerous to own a gun, don't you think they would be equally dangerous with other things that are easy to obtain? Given this, I think it doesn't solve the problem that you still have a dangerous person walking around society. Maybe they should stay in prison longer, or indefinitely in some cases. Make work camps with more freedom if you're a humanitarian, I don't know.

5) If you're going to appeal to the 2A, it doesn't mention anything about non-criminality as a prerequisite, presumably just citizenship, as that's who these amendments apply to.

6) Even if someone does commit a violent crime, some people were young, made a bad decisions, reform, etc.

 

[Bad Brain]

If a selling point of guns is that they stop other guns, the same logic says not having guns means you don’t need other guns.

Yeah, but you're not talking about removing guns from the government or other nations are you? ...or the criminals that will never give them up regardless the law dum-dum!

You should also consider how a gun equalizes size advantages, especially for women. I would love if more women carried. If they shot their rapists dead, we would have less rapists, ehh?

 

[JTyson]

I'll think about all this some more, but here's the problems I'm seeing:

1) Criminals are criminals before they get caught, and sometimes they never get caught. So only taking this "Right" after they get caught doesn't really address the issue of criminals having guns.

2) Criminals will get weapons regardless of whether they are legally allowed to own them. Only allowing some people reinforces the whole network of bureaucracy around getting a gun and makes the process harder for people that have never and will never commit a violent crime.

3) Withholding this "Right" makes it a privilege, which is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, IE either it's a right or not. I don't like idea of government doling out privileges, because it reinforces the idea that is their job.

4) Again, if a criminal is too dangerous to own a gun, don't you think they would be equally dangerous with other things that are easy to obtain? Given this, I think it doesn't solve the problem that you still have a dangerous person walking around society. Maybe they should stay in prison longer, or indefinitely in some cases. Make work camps with more freedom if you're a humanitarian, I don't know.

5) If you're going to appeal to the 2A, it doesn't mention anything about non-criminality as a prerequisite, presumably just citizenship, as that's who these amendments apply to.

6) Even if someone does commit a violent crime, some people were young, made a bad decisions, reform, etc.

Ok..
We agree on a lot of those points. We just differ on criminals legally getting them after they have been convicted of a felony.
They will still get them, as you stated. People who don't have to consider defending themselves for whatever reason already view most people who carry guns as people itching to get a chance to shoot someone, it just seems like if we allowed convicted felons who have murdered people to legally get guns again, we would be lumping ourselves in with them in time. I want no connection with them at all just because I choose to carry. I think legally that should always be kept separated, even though they will still get them.
We can disagree on that one

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Yeah, but you're not talking about removing guns from the government or other nations are you? ...or the criminals that will never give them up regardless the law dum-dum!

You should also consider how a gun equalizes size advantages, especially for women. I would love if more women carried. If they shot their rapists dead, we would have less rapists, ehh?

That opens up a whole other can of worms though. is rape worthy of death? Some would say yes. Is attempted rape worthy of death? (I.e. shot before it actually happened)

Others would say the victim shouldn’t even be allowed to have an abortion if pregnant from rape.

 

[JTyson]

Yeah, but you're not talking about removing guns from the government or other nations are you? ...or the criminals that will never give them up regardless the law dum-dum!

You should also consider how a gun equalizes size advantages, especially for women. I would love if more women carried. If they shot their rapists dead, we would have less rapists, ehh?

This we totally agree on...

 

[Bad Brain]

That opens up a whole other can of worms though. is rape worthy of death? Some would say yes. Is attempted rape worthy of death? (I.e. shot before it actually happened)

Just keep it simple — it’s self defense. You have no idea what someone is going to do once they’ve crossed that line. Same with a home intruder.

 

[Dan Gleesak]

Just keep it simple — it’s self defense. You have no idea what someone is going to do once they’ve crossed that line. Same with a home intruder.

That slope is too slippery for me. There are too many non lethal methods of self defense, even when using a gun, for me to warrant taking an intruder’s life

 

[Bad Brain]

That slope is too slippery for me. There are too many non lethal methods of self defense, even when using a gun, for me to warrant taking an intruder’s life

Well, no one says you’d have to use lethal force, and I respect one’s decision not to, but I think you’d be wrong to force your opinion on others.