Waffle House shooting suspect leaves 4 dead & flees naked

He's probably wearing some clothes by now Nugs.

Naked isnt a permanent condition.

IT's just a white guy who had an AR 15.  No biggie.

Third page in our local paper this morning - The Republican American.  

4 people isn't really newsworthy.

The police "confiscated" his guns and then gave them back to his family who then gave them back to him. I blame the police and his family as much as him.

He's nuts, what's their excuse?

>> He's nuts, what's their excuse?

A gun "culture" that has been building over the past 20+ years. 2nd Amendment is absolute, and shall not be infringed, in many people's eyes. Maybe we need to make some changes.

We can't cure mental illness or stupidity but we can prevent AR15's from legally going into people's hands without a back round check.  Thanks for making that point Ender. 

...

..

 (((back round check)))

Junk in trunk?

>>> The police "confiscated" his guns and then gave them back to his family...

After he was arrested by Secret Service, interviewed by the FBI.

Had his Firearm Card revoked by the FBI and 4 weapons seized.

Weapons were turned over to the father.

Father "Promised" to not give them back.

So who should be held responsible?

>>> 4 people isn't really newsworthy.

Sad, but true.

4 people dead.

2 teenagers, 1 mom,  1 murder-suicide. (Dad)

and 3 younger siblings in the Hospital with gunshot wounds.

In Asheville last week.

Anybody here about this?

Strips shoots and leaves.

Just a few miles from my house a incestuous father filled his exwife/biological daughter and her step father full of bullets from an AR15.  A few hours before he had killed his baby and then later himself.  

Again, we can stop putting weapons of war into peoples hands.  Blame the laws that allow it. 

>> Blame the laws that allow it. 

The laws already took away this guy's right to own firearms in his state. 

I hear about Bay Area homicides, suicides and accidental shooting fatalities on the local news. Sometimes they get a Nugs thread.

Age limits
Training
License
Mandatory Insurance
Registration
No-loophole background checks

The Musket/Militia 2nd amenders and current NRA/Putin owned GOP.

Say it's mental illness.

Meanwhile, cutting mental illness programs to literally non existence.

You can't have it both ways motherfuckers.

The law allowed him to legally purchase the gun without a check.  The law then gave it back to his father --- so I'm guessing the PD thought that they were obligated to return the weapons to a family member?  I'm not looking to be an expert on back ass wards TN gun laws.   Again, you can't prevent mental illness or stupidity...You regulate BEFORE not after. 

>> Again, you can't prevent mental illness or stupidity...You regulate BEFORE not after. 

I guess we can pass a law to DOUBLE make it illegal for this guy to own guns.

This will be an interesting case when it comes to confiscation/re-introduction, transfer among family members, etc.

Wonder why this similar story didn't make the national news?

A customer at Waffle House on Elysian Fields shot a robber in the restaurant Thursday night, less than an hour after a similar robbery at Burger King, New Orleans police said.

The pair of restaurant robberies started shortly before 9:30 p.m. Thursday, April 19, at the Burger King in the 6300 block of Elysian Fields, when two armed men entered from a side door, according to initial NOPD reports.

“One subject grabbed an employee and made the others get on the floor,” the report states. “The other male subject went to the back of the store with the manager and made her open the safe. The subjects fled with six register drawers containing cash.”

Just before 10:15 p.m., the scene repeated itself at the Waffle House in the 2900 block of Elysian Fields, when two men entered with handguns, the second report states. One of them jumped over the restaurant counter and demanded money and cell phones, but as they left with the money, a customer in the restaurant shot at them, the report states.

http://gentillymessenger.com/waffle-house-customer-shoots-armed-robber-o...

 A double law?  Nah, you make it illegal for him to purchase it in the first place.  You create a national database to help law enforcement and retailers.  It's not all that difficult.

Are bullets protected in the Constitution?

Just spitballing here.

Ender -- it's simple. The robbers didn't go in with the sole purpose of killing people with an AR15.  

>>> Nah, you make it illegal for him to purchase it in the first place.  You create a national database to help law enforcement and retailers.  It's not all that difficult.

It already exists federally. Tennesse has one too.

Interesting that the police here, and in Parkland, are arguably complicit by there actions (or lack there of). 

>>> The police "confiscated" his guns and then gave them back to his family who then gave them back to him.

Who owned the guns?

The father or the son??

The confiscation of the guns was done in Illinois.

In TN you can privately sell an AR15 without a back round check.  

No use for a data base that it isn't used. 

>>>4 people isn't really newsworthy.

Sad but true.  Just like an average summer Saturday night in Chicago.   Random attacks on strangers get way more press than the day-to-day gang violence that kills far more people each year - the majority of which are people of color.  

And this guy was buck-naked.  That's a big reason its getting so much press.  Dude was crazy too.   Thought he was being stalked by Taylor Swift.

What were the cops thinking giving the guns back to an immediate family member for "safe keeping"?

What is the difference between naked and buck-naked?

I believe the term buck-naked comes from the lack of clothes Native Americans wore when white settlers arrived on the continent. 

So so they’re the same thing one just has racial undertones.

Any word on WHO owned the guns?

Father or Son??

It really matters.

If they belonged to the father, shouldn't he be charged?

And...

If the guns were the 29yr. old white male murderer of 4 unarmed (People Of Color).

Why were they given back to the father when the son was deemed unfit to have a gun?

>> Ender -- it's simple. The robbers didn't go in with the sole purpose of killing people with an AR15.  

Jonas, you'll never see a national headline about defensive gun use because it doesn't match the narrative that guns are evil and need to be "controlled". 

Guns are used for self-defense literally every day in this country.

It made national headlines when George Zimmerman defended himself against a kid with skittles.

Personally, I think he murdered the kid and that has little to do with self-defense. But Florida's laws are wack.

Ender - I see you waying in on other situations.

What about THIS situation?

Any word on WHO owned the guns?

Father or Son??

It really matters.

If they belonged to the father, shouldn't he be charged?

And...

If the guns were the 29yr. old white male murderer of 4 unarmed (People Of Color).

Why were they given back to the father when the son was deemed unfit to have a gun?

Tod, please don’t let this distract you from the good work you’ve been doing on solving the whole Russia thing.  I don’t want you to spread yourself too thin.

Ender --  I grew up around guns. I packed shells with my grandfather.  I butchered deer with my father.  I hunted every November.  

We never hunted with machines that were solely designed to kill humans. 

You?  

>> Ender - I see you waying in on other situations.

>> What about THIS situation?

T.O.D., I don't recognize your authority as a self-appointed moderator and, therefore, I'll talk about whatever the fuck I want to.

(And it's "weighing in", not "waying in").

You're a numbers guy, right?  Look at the stats, not redit, of the 'good guy' with gun stopping the 'bad guy' with gun.  

The guy's been caught maybe we can get some answers now

>> Ender --  I grew up around guns. I packed shells with my grandfather.  I butchered deer with my father.  I hunted every November.  

>> We never hunted with machines that were solely designed to kill humans. 

>> You?  

I'm not sure how my biography is relevant to this discussion on current and proposed law.  But I own guns. I don't hunt. We reload.

*Shots fired*

Thanks for the answer Ender.

Just thought you might be able to regale us in more rhetoric and opinion.

No need to take your ball and go home.

I find your lack of distorted fact and word salad entertaining.

>> You're a numbers guy, right?  Look at the stats, not redit, of the 'good guy' with gun stopping the 'bad guy' with gun.  

The stats show roughly 30k people die each year by firearms in America. That's roughly 300,000 in 10 years. 173 people have been killed by mass shootings from 2007-now by AR-15s.

The outliers are what's publicized. It's ridiculous to make policy based on 173 out of 300,000.

>>>4 people isn't really newsworthy.

Sad but true.  Just like an average summer Saturday night in Chicago.<<<

At the same time, they will be reported somewhere ... maybe not front page, but it will be recorded.

I find this interesting in so far as how it contrasts with times of war or perhaps other parts of the world ... where people often just disappear, or killing is just so commonplace.

Suspect has apparently been arrested

Please stop posting. Please.

>>>>how it contrasts with times of war or perhaps other parts of the world ... where people often just disappear, or killing is just so commonplace.

For example, 60+ people were killed this weekend in Kabul when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a voter registration center.   The US may seem to be a violent place (especially when compared to other "first world" countries).  But it actually ranks about 90th in murders per capita.  Even if looking just at the USA, we are living in a relatively safe time compared to the crime waves of the early 1930s, the 1970s, and early 1990s.   

>>>>how it contrasts with times of war or perhaps other parts of the world ... where people often just disappear, or killing is just so commonplace.

For example, 60+ people were killed this weekend in Kabul when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a voter registration center.   The US may seem to be a violent place (especially when compared to other "first world" countries).  But it actually ranks about 90th in murders per capita.  Even if looking just at the USA, we are living in a relatively safe time compared to the crime waves of the early 1930s, the 1970s, and early 1990s.<<<

I've always found it interesting to contemplate the relative security we enjoy in the US in this day and age ... it's almost as if we don't know any better about how bad things can really get.

And meanwhile, in Toronto Canada . . . 

A man killed people with a van because he couldn’t get an AR-15?

Ender - As I said, stats will prove you wrong about the good guy stopping the bad guy. 

My memory might be foggy but did you purchase your first gun after your apartment was robbed?

What the recent spate of vehicle ramming attacks demonstrates is that one does not need a semi-automatic rifle or handgun to cause incredible damage and loss of life.   The Bastille Day truck attack in Nice in 2016 killed more people than any single mass shooter has.

In the United States, the most murderous events involved (1) plane hijacking (9/11),  (2) bombing (Oklahoma City), and (3) arson (1990 Happy Land fire). 

Of course, many more people have been killed in suicides and day-to-day gang violence, which by and large involve handguns.

>> My memory might be foggy but did you purchase your first gun after your apartment was robbed?

Nope, incorrect and irrelevant.  

>> Ender - As I said, stats will prove you wrong about the good guy stopping the bad guy. 

There are little to no government statistics collected on defensive gun use.

Maybe this is relevant?

Good guy with a gun, stopping the bad guy with a gun myth.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/breaking-nra-backed-theory-good-guy-gun-stops/s...

Fuck NRA propaganda!

>> Good guy with a gun, stopping the bad guy with a gun myth.

He's an article explaining why it's not a myth. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-...

Gary Kleck wrote that in 2015.

You should probably google your source.

I know, I know "Don't tell me blah blah..."

but anyway, try Gary Kleck NRA.

I found this lil' ditty.

Kleck's work is the scientific heart of the NRA's attack on the public health approach to guns, but he has no ties to the organization, and has been careful to distance himself from it.

Kleck's finding has been called "an enormous overestimate" and "the gun debate's new mythical number,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/trigger/trigger5.htm

>> Gary Kleck wrote that in 2015.

>> You should probably google your source.

Your linked washington post article is from 1998???

>> he has no ties to the organization, and has been careful to distance himself from it.

Sounds like a scientist to me.

>> Kleck's finding has been called "an enormous overestimate" and "the gun debate's new mythical number,"

Kleck's finding's about defensive gun use were confirmed independently by the CDC.

CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

Ouch..

Just another good guy defending himself

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/stray-bullet-kills-neigh...

Timmy, 

That sort of gun crime definitely gets recorded in the FBI statistics. 

More defensive gun use:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-neighbor-shot-outside-bo...

>>> ... 1998???

Exactly,

Dude has made a career of that "word salad" bullshit.

Marion Hammer former NRA President. (1995-98)

Has been a NRA lobbyist since the 70's to present.

Guess where she's from?

Florida.

She heavily leans on Gary Kleck's (Prof. @ Florida State) research.

She is personally responsible for the law that allowed George Zimmerman to kill Trayvon Martin.

Here's an article that rebukes Kleck's methodology.

He wrote what you linked after reading this 2015 article.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-...

*Both Marion Hammer and Gary Kleck work in Tallahassee Fl.

His work is done for her to help pass the NRA agenda.

No connection. JFC.

Timmy,

I could fill this thread with articles describing people defending themselves lawfully, but I don't think anecdotes prove anything. 

T.O.D.,

They are both from Florida! Smoking gun, obvious conspiracy - you got me. Is the CDC's scientist from the sunshine state too? Is the CDC and the NRA in bed together?

My point being that a gun being used defensively isn’t really a good thing.  Sounds like 2.4 million poor descisions.

Ender - That's it homie?

No connection there??

No NRA weirdness with that working relationship??

But you yell "Florida Conspiracy!" Like you just got YAHTZEE.

You're better than this.

In fact,  you're a really smart gun owner (self admitted).

Its safe to say that both sides of the "Good Guy with a Gun" debate have dug their heels into extreme viewpoints that don't necessarily reflect reality.

On one side, it is true that there are many instances in which crimes, including mass shootings, have been stopped in progress by an armed citizen.  Every hear of the Clackamas Town Center Massacre where a deranged young man stole his roommate's AR-15 and headed down to the local mall determined to cause mass casualties?   If it doesn't ring a bell it's because the shooter was quickly confronted by a shopper with a concealed carry permit who put an end to the threat.   Second Ft. Hood Massacre?  The 2017 Rancho Tehama Elementary School shooting?   Both also stopped short by the proverbial "good guy with a gun."   As common as these occurrences are, they get little attention outside of Fox News and the "Armed Citizen" section of the NRA's monthly magazine precisely because the event was stopped short before the body count could pile up.

On the other hand, common sense and statistics show that having a gun in the home makes one less safe.   That is largely because there are plenty of idiots who leave loaded guns laying around in easy reach of kids, domestic abusers, and suicidal individuals.  Arming every man, woman, and child with more firearms is not a practical solution to gun violence.

However, as Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."   To get a better grasp of the true nature of the public safety risks associated with firearms, federal funding for CDC research on the issue must be restored.   That is something I feel everyone should support.   

The Gun Lobby is really good at spreading fake information, as are the NRA cultists. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in...

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

It's a common refrain touted by gun rights advocates, who argue that using guns in self-defense can help save lives. But what is the actual number of defensive gun uses?

According to the Pew Research Center, 48 percent of gun owners say they own a gun mainly for protection. But for years, experts have been divided over how often people actually use guns in self-defense. The numbers range from the millions to hundreds of thousands, depending on whom you ask.

The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.

"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

But the research spread by the gun lobby paints a drastically different picture of self-defense gun uses. One of the most commonly cited estimates of defensive gun uses, published in 1995 by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, concluded there are between 2.2 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.

One of the main criticisms of this estimate is that researchers can't seem to find the people who are shot by civilians defending themselves because they don't show up in hospital records.

"The Kleck-Gertz survey suggests that the number of DGU respondents who reported shooting their assailant was over 200,000, over twice the number of those killed or treated [for gunshots] in emergency departments," crime prevention researcher Philip Cook wrote in the book Envisioning Criminology.

Kleck says there is no record of these gunshot victims because most instances of self-defense gun use are not reported.

"If you tell the police, I just wielded a gun pointing a deadly weapon at another human being and claimed it was in self-defense, the police are going to investigate that," he tells Young, "and they may well in the short run arrest you and treat you as a criminal until and unless you are cleared."

On the flipside, Kleck says, criminals who were wounded after a gun was used in self-defense also have no incentive to go to the emergency room because medical professionals have an obligation to report it to the police. But Hemenway points out that if people don't go to the hospital to treat the original gunshot wound, they will inevitably end up there "with sepsis or other major problems."

He also notes that part of the reason experts are so divided on the number is the difficulty in obtaining reliable survey data on the issue.

"The researchers who look at [Kleck's study] say this is just bad science," Hemenway says. "It's a well-known problem in epidemiology that if something's a rare event, and you just try to ask how many people have done this, you will get incredible overestimates."

In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.

Another problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of defensive gun use. Some incidents could involve illegal carrying or possession, or they could amount to aggravated assault, the Rand Corp. writes:

Perceptions about the incident and an individual's role are important because much of the literature relies on self-reports: The respondent must have perceived there to have been a crime (or, in some surveys, a suspected or averted crime) and must consider himself or herself a victim rather than a mutual combatant. Even such stringent definitions, however, may not be sufficient to determine whether the event was lawful, legitimate, or desirable from a social perspective.

Even if someone wanted to use a gun in self-defense, they probably wouldn't be very successful, says Mike Weisser, firearms instructor and author of the blog "Mike The Gun Guy." He says many people who carry a gun aren't properly trained to use it in this way, and there is no performance validation standard for police officers.

"If we don't even have a minimum standard, not for training, but for performance validation for our law enforcement," he says, "how in God's name is anybody going to say, 'Well, just because you have a gun in your pocket, you know how to use it in self-defense?' You don't."

>>In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. The Post notes that "a more reasonable estimate" of self-defense gun uses equals about 100,000 annually, according to the NCVS data.

*snicker*

>> In fact, Cook told The Washington Post that the percentage of people who told Kleck they used a gun in self-defense is similar to the percentage of Americans who said they were abducted by aliens. 

The fact that you think the comparison of these two percentages is relevant means the author fooled you.

*snicker*

you are hysterical, Ender. 

I used a gun to apprehend a thief.   Never been abducted by aliens but saw a UFO.

I call fake science, Ender. There were way more than 17 pirates in 2000.

Dad has some serious splaining to do.

This goes to the "gun culture" thing, that people are so certain that any old person can and should have a gun that they provide them guns even after RED FLAGS that are pretty obvious. Dad's faith in guns so secure that he didn't think "Hmmm, maybe ATF was right to take them away from my delusional nutball son." Just as stupid as people who are so afraid of guns that they act like looking at a gun will cause it to go off.  Gun people--please start being more responsible how you store your guns and who you give them to.

One side says, “too many are dying from guns. It’s fucked up and we need to change laws.”

The other side says, “sure, people die, but it’s our inalienable right to have guns.”

That’s all there is to it.

Based on the reality that nothing’s going to change, I think that every person should be issued a gun at the age of 18, and we should be required to have them on us at all times. None of this “concealed carry” shit, but straight up open carry. That seems like a decent deterrent.

naked guy with multiple military weapons screams "well regulated militia" to me.

Marvin Wolfgang, who was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ″the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world″, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. [...] The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refere...

So Waffle House dude is a Terrorist. 

According to the FBI.

WTF?!

Only a 2 Million dollar bail!

Domestic Terrorism
The Sovereign Citizen Movement

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitiz...

I am going to answer the tough question that nobody addressed.

What is the difference between naked and buck-naked?<<<

You are naked in the shower, or bathtub.  You are buck-naked in the woods, or a Waffle House.

So they caught the guy and hey gave him a bail bond lol. Amazing. Guy murders four people and can post bail for 200k.

>> So they caught the guy and hey gave him a bail bond lol.

The $2 million bond for accused Waffle House shooter Travis Reinking was revoked by a Tennessee judge Tuesday, court records show.

A bond hearing was set for Wednesday, according to the order signed by state Judge Michael Mondelli in Davidson County, who did not provide an explanation for his decision.

http://wgntv.com/2018/04/23/waffle-house-suspect-still-being-sought-resi...

According to the story posted above, the dad could be facing serious charges for giving back the guns to his whack job son:

"The father, Jeffrey Reinking, could face charges for transferring weapons to a person knowingly prohibited from possessing them, said Marcus Watson, the ATF's acting special agent in charge in Tennessee."

Its also safe to assume that the dad will be filing for bankruptcy once the civil lawsuits start rolling in.

Glad they revoked his bail.

His Father should face charges.

How many more people have to die before we have SERIOUS gun law reform?

Has Trump or the White House made a statement about this shooting?

>> How many more people have to die before we have SERIOUS gun law reform?

We already have laws that made it illegal for this man to own firearms, they weren't enforced. Any more laws would superfluous and would only serve to punish law abiding gun owners.

Throw this kid and his dad in jail. 

That’s good it got revoked. The fact that it was ever an option is terrible. One day before the hearing, wow. Fucking Tennessee.

>>> Any more laws would superfluous and would only serve to punish law abiding gun owners.

Why Ender, is somebody's right to own a weapon of fucking war,

greater than somebody's right to live?

No weapon of war, No 4 dead at the Waffle House.

>> Why Ender, is somebody's right to own a weapon of fucking war, greater than somebody's right to live?

Once again, the shooter didn't have the right to own a firearm. We already passed a law to address this problem.

That's not what I asked you.

I asked you...

"Is somebody's right to own a weapon of fucking war, greater than somebody's right to live?"

No word salad... Real talk.

>> "Is somebody's right to own a weapon of fucking war, greater than somebody's right to live?"

Your question is similar to asking, "Do you still beat your wife?" You are presuming that someone's life is threatened by someone else merely owning a gun. 

We're not talking about a gun.

We're talking about a weapon of war (AR-15).

Is the right to own a weapon of war, greater than somebody's right to live?

Yes or No?

Pretty simple.

>>>>No weapon of war, No 4 dead at the Waffle House

Just a point of order.  The perp would have been able to kill just as many people if he was just armed with a high capacity semi-automatic handgun like a Glock 19.  Long arms like the rifle used by the perp are designed for shooting at a distance.  In close quarters like a Waffle House, the rifle gave the perp no advantage.  In fact, a bystander was able to successfully wrestle the rifle out of the hands of the shooter, in part, because it was a rifle which can be clumsy in a close quarters situation.

>>>>weapon of war

Actually, the type of rifle used is not designed for military use because it lacks a select fire mode.   The military versions have a three round burst option, and some have full auto mode.

Carry on.

Ken - Since you decided to throw your hat in the ring.

I think it's fair to ask you the same question.

Is the right to own a weapon of war (AR-15), greater than somebody's right to live?

>Once again, the shooter didn't have the right to own a firearm. We already passed a law to address this problem.

except we didn't, Ender.

in fact in the State where he owned the weapons he was given the opportunity to either sell the weapons to give them to someone - like his father. NO law preventing the weapons from being in the same household as the person deemed unfit to own them, nor is there a law stating that they must be locked up in the house. There is also no law  that legally prevents the transfer of such deadly weapons should the unfit person move OUT of State, like to Tennessee. if Dad drove the weapons to Tennessee and returned them to his son, there was no law preventing the transfer. the loopholes are enormous, and there are No FEDERAL laws governing the tracking of weapon ownership across STATE lines, no FEDERAL laws requiring weapons be stored under lock and key, NO FEDERAL law requiring Universal Background Checks, NO Federal Law requiring that people deemed mentally ill or with previous criminal records relinquish their weapons. So no, WE have not already passed laws to address the problem. Maybe you're just confused, Ender. Granted there are some very  weak  laws in place that would prevent him from purchasing and acquiring new deadly weapons, but none to address confiscating the weapons he currently owns or to prevent his Daddy from returning his weapons to him should he move out of State. 

https://www.kqed.org/radio/program/the-takeaway

and

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-s...

AILSA CHANG, HOST:

What many people are asking about in this case is why the suspect was allowed to even have guns, given the fact that he'd shown signs of mental instability and threatening behavior, including an incident last summer on the grounds of the White House. NPR's law enforcement correspondent Martin Kaste joins us now to talk about what options police have to remove guns from someone like this. Hi, Martin.

MARTIN KASTE, BYLINE: Hi, Ailsa.

CHANG: OK, the way I understand it, it seems the suspect in this case did lose his guns, at least temporarily. Can you tell us what happened?

KASTE: Well, yes. He's been showing some signs of mental instability. There was an incident last summer, kind of a bizarre behavior involving a swimming pool and he exposed himself and he had a rifle with him. After that, the local law enforcement went to his father, who apparently told them he would lock up his sons guns, at least while he was trying to get some help or something like that. But then a month later, we had this incident at the White House kind of on the security perimeter there where he breached that perimeter.

And after that, the feds apparently went to Illinois law enforcement and encouraged them to take his guns away, if possible. What they did is they canceled his gun card that's required in Illinois. But it was unclear, really, what the legal grounds for taking those guns away might be. And so what happened there is his father volunteered to take the guns into safekeeping. And the deputies who were there to take those guns agreed to do that. But apparently after that at some point, Reinking did get his hands on those guns again.

CHANG: So Travis Reinking's behavior had been strange and threatening. Why wouldn't there have been legal basis to take away his guns in that case?

KASTE: Well, because of his constitutional legal rights to own those guns. Police generally have very few options in these cases to take away someone's property like that. There really has to be an outright threat of violence or actual violence. And we saw that with the case of the accused shooter in Parkland. There had been lots of visits by police, concerns about his mental health. But there was little they could do about taking away his guns, which were legal. And that's why there's been this push now recently for what's called generically red flag laws that go by different names, gun violence restraining order, that kind of thing.

And what these new laws that are being proposed do is create a mechanism that the police can use. They can go to a court to get a prevention order - it's kind of like in domestic violence cases - to temporarily take guns away with some legal backing.

CHANG: How common are those laws across the United States?

KASTE: Well, they're not that common yet. There's a handful of states that have them. But after Parkland, we saw a real big, new push, especially by gun control groups, to promote these laws. About 20 states roughly had been considering them, including Illinois and Tennessee. But so far, those two states did not actually have red flag laws on the books yet when all this happened.

CHANG: And is there a push back from gun rights groups on having more of these laws on the books?

KASTE: Well, yes and no. The NRA recently announced that officially it is supportive of the idea of red flag laws, in principle, because this actually supports the NRA's take on things that mass shootings are mainly a mental health problem and not a gun problem. But in practice, the NRA has not been supporting the laws as they've been proposed because they require a kind of a long list of conditions to make sure those laws are constitutional in their view, that they don't infringe too much on people's rights to own guns.

For example, they say they'll only support a law like this if the same standards for committing someone involuntarily to mental health treatment, if those same standards are applied to take away someone's guns.

CHANG: Wow, that's a really high bar.

KASTE: It's a very high bar. It's hard to commit someone involuntarily. And so, you know, the people promoting these laws say, well, with a bar that high, you're really not supporting this at all. And in fact, in a lot of states, the NRA has opposed versions of this law.

CHANG: What about the fact that the father had said he would take care of the guns but then the son got the guns back anyway? Could the father be criminally liable in any way?

KASTE: It's not really clear yet under Illinois law how that would work. It could have been a legal transfer, despite the lack of a gun card. And the fact is actually in a lot of these cases in states that do have red flag laws, the police often take advantage of family members who are volunteering to take possession of the guns for safekeeping. This is actually often a very useful compromise because the person losing the guns is less likely to fight it.

wrong:

Possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws.

Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

Illinois

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.

Sells or gives any firearm to any person who has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years

Sells or gives any firearms to any person who is a person with an intellectual disability.

720 Ill. Rev. Stat. § 5/24-3.1.

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

He has been a patient in a mental institution within the past 5 years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or 

He is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.

i could only find handgun requirements for TN

Hillman, we can trust the integrity and veracity of the reporters and legal analysts at NPR more than the  google searches of NRA cultists on a drug band web site. Besides, Ender is better at spreading the NRA propaganda here. Leave the heaving lifting and misinformation to him. Or knock yourself out, buddy. 

Dammit Nancy, they're never gonna answer my yes or no question. Lol.

Hillman you wanna give it a shot?

>>>>>Just a point of order.  The perp would have been able to kill just as many people if he was just armed with a high capacity semi-automatic handgun like a Glock 19.  Long arms like the rifle used by the perp are designed for shooting at a distance.  In close quarters like a Waffle House, the rifle gave the perp no advantage.  In fact, a bystander was able to successfully wrestle the rifle out of the hands of the shooter, in part, because it was a rifle which can be clumsy in a close quarters situation.

AR 15s cause much more gruesome wounds than a handgun.  He could have killed 4 people with a hammer but he didn’t.

T.O.D.: I'd like to think that you may have a chance to reduce "nit-picking" responses by posing the question this way:

>>>Is the right to own an AR-15 greater than somebody's right to live?

Most of us already know what damage can be achieved by the actual rifle (with actual bullets made for it) in the hands of a human being.

(you may have a chance...)

>> Is the right to own an AR-15 greater than somebody's right to live?

The right to bear arms does not conflict with the right to live. The concept of a right to life arises in debates concerning justifiable homicide all the time. 

The 2nd amendment guarantees an individual the right to lawful self-defense using a firearm. So I'd say owning a firearm goes hand it hand with practicing your right to live.

Johnny D - I'm not playing word games.

I'm not putting on kid gloves on this subject.

Partial list of murders this decade from this weapon of war.

- The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Fla., shooting that killed 16 children 1 adult in 2018

- The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people last October.

- The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives in November.

- The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead in 2016.

- The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people in 2015.

- The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives in 2012.

How is my unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, less important

than your weapon of war?

TOD, Ender gave you a pretty good answer to that poorly formed question.

>>>>War Gun = the only animal you hunt with this is a person

Well, under that logic, every handgun would be considered a "war gun" because they have no practical use in hunting.

What is confusing about the current debate is its single minded obsession with a certain style of rifle that is used in only the tiniest percentage of homicides and other crimes.  Handguns are by far a much greater problem from a public safety and crime prevention perspective than any type of long arm.    If you are going to expend precious political capital singling out any type of firearm for additional regulation, it needs to be handguns. 

TH - How was it poorly formed?

httphttp://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5278638&page=1://www.nydailynews.c...

A Brief History Of The AR-15

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

Because they aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m all for banning them but that’s a stupid argument.

Because they aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m all for banning them but that’s a stupid argument.

T.O.D., you are always going to have people who argue that the AR-15 is not a "weapon of war" (aka military grade weapon), based on its technical aspects/details.  Not to mention that it most likely has not been used in an actual war (as far I know).  You are inviting people to pick apart the less-important (to folks like you and me) issue at hand instead of this: that these are extremely dangerous and appear to be quite effective at killing people (like more than one).

On the spectrum between BB gun and Abrams Tank, I personally believe that the AR-15 crosses the line in the direction of the tank.

Ken D has a very valid point about hand guns and I don't think that calling for the banning of assault rifles (oops! another arguable technicality) excludes hand guns from consideration, given how many have been killed from them.  However, in some way, it seems like the less bulky pistol at least makes a little more sense (to me) for someone who actually wants a practical weapon in relationship to current interpretations of First Amendment rights.

But, what do I know?

Get 'em Nancy!! Ha ha

<<<War Gun = the only animal you hunt with this is a person

The .223 fired from an ar15 is a pretty good little varmint round with a longer barrel and a nice scope.  Ranchers also regularly use it as a coyote gun, seeing it as more humane having the ability for a quicker follow up shot than the traditional bolt action. You can argue about the morality of this use in relation to the animals, but semiautomatic  ar s are used by hunters all over the world and are not exclusively, by any means limited to hunting people.

TH, Johnny D -

I hear you...You're right.

I let emotions get in the way sometimes.

People should be aware that if you encourage politicians to revoke your gun rights,  cops & robbers & politicians will still have guns.  But you won't have the choice.

Are you pro-choice or a silly lemming ??

Anyway,  I find it difficult to believe that a naked person shot up a Waffle House in Tennessee,  then escaped on foot,  leaving their vehicle behind.

It's sort of an outlandish tale.  Do people just believe any sort of drivel because it's "On TV" ?

>>>>Not true, if a bear charges a hand gun is the last line of defense

In that case, your not hunting the bear.   Also, if being charged by a bear, you better have a big handgun (.357 on up) or you might just piss it off more:

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/10-best-bear-defense-guns-pics/

Really, the best defense against bear attacks is being able to outrun your hiking companions.

If a grizzly is charging you and you have a handgun just get ready to put yourself out of your misery if necessary.

This guy (Tyler Freel) actually recommends a few different handguns / cartridges in his article regarding shooting Grizzly Bears.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2012/12/best-grizzly-...

I found the article informative,  although I've never shot at a Bear.  I sort of don't get Josè's statement about how one should off themselves if a Grizzly charges.  I mean,  if the situation arose,  and you had a loaded firearm,  why would any sane person shoot him/her self rather than the attacking Bear ??

That doesn't make any sense.

>Is the right to own a weapon of war, greater than somebody's right to live?

>Yes or No?

>Pretty simple.

It's not really that simple though, is it?    Unless there is suddenly a 1:1 correlation between people who exercise their rights and people who die due to others doing so...   If so, then the right to live should win, of course.

But the way you're framing it, I'm going to have to point out that we have millions of people across the country who exercise their right to own said weapon... and how many people had their right to live denied in comparison to the millions who maintained their rights peacefully? 

And where did we arrive at this crazy correlation in the first place?   Thankfully,  exercising one's right to bear arms does not equate to denying someone else's right to life automatically.   In fact, it's statistically very rare.  

>>  how many people had their right to live denied in comparison to the million who maintained their rights peacefully?

• 270-350 million guns in our country depending on who you ask. 
• 39% of households own a gun.
• There are roughly 11,000 firearm homicides/year. 

So it's the rights of 39% of American households and the rights of 11,000 very unfortunate and who have my full sympathy victims?   That sucks.   Such a shitty choice.  Really.

I think anyone of sound mind would always say the right to live is more important than all others.    But based purely on logic and numbers, trying to leave emotions out of it, I'm thinking 39% and the tens of millions of proper and peaceful Americans should probably not have any of their rights denied over that, IMNSHO.    If I was forced to choose, of course - Thankfully, it doesn't really work like that.  YMMV.

I assume that many of the unfortunate 11,000 fall within the 39% who own guns.  Domestic violence and gang on gang violence account for a very large percentage of firearm related homicides.  

• 263.6 million cars in America
• 91% of US households own a car
• 37,461 motor vehicle deaths in 2016

I live in a rural area surrounded by other rural areas,  but midway between NYC and Philadelphia.

Most of my hick neighbors  have various firearms,  but you never hear of any shootings.  Maybe shots are fired at Deer or gophers.

In contrast,  the state Capitol (Trenton) has shootings almost every day,  Crip vs. Blood,  or just "unknown assailants"  firing off rounds at each other.

"The Trentonian" newspaper has their police blotter page w/ all the stuff that went down every day.  It's basically a tour-guide on which neighborhoods have the Krak&Smak activity.

We know where the liberal parents who watch mainstream media fall.... but I truly wonder where the Crips and Bloods would stand on the tough issue of Second Amendment rights vs. the rights of others to live?

It'd make for good dinner conversation for sure...

They’d probably prefer they be mad illegal so they can double or triple the going price for a stolen or “lost” firearm.

>>>>unknown assailants"  firing off rounds at each other

There was a statistic above about the number of times a gun is used in "self defense" each year and it seemed high.  I wonder if they include in the definition of "self defense" each time one gang starts shooting at a rival gang, and the rival gang starts shooting back.

"...wonder where the Crips and Bloods would stand on the tough issue of Second Amendment rights vs. the rights of others to live?.."

Realistically,  the majority of those people aren't going out to file paperwork and register their stuff.  They are already part of the illegal firearm economy.  The average person legally allowed to have firearms goes to the store to purchase stuff,  not getting involved in shady possibly stolen goods.

I was more talking on a moral and philosophical stance, but yeah they would undoubtedly enjoy a climate of illegal guns being able to be sold even more expensively than they are now... Along with the added benefit of being the only civilians in the nation with the desire and continued access to said murderous firearms that always deprive people of their right to life.

Sounds like an awesome plan... Git 'er done!     I don't even know why people are continuing to resist such obviously sensible changes/choice as these things become clearer...!

I would ask how the microscopic group who are illegally exercising their rights while simultaneously denying others of their right to life factors into these big sacrificial decisions, but I think we all know that answer already. 

>>>>>>>>Along with the added benefit of being the only civilians in the nation with the desire and continued access to said murderous firearms that always deprive people of their right to life.

All those guns on the black market started as legal guns.  If guns were made illegal and taken and destroyed through buyback programs it would also make it much harder for them to get the guns through burglaries or from people “losing” them.

The if we outlaw guns only outlaws argument is just as stupid as the but you can kill people with a car or hammer argument.

*will have guns

Based on the numbers and the culture we live in, it would take generations at best to see any real result from that course... I can only hope the public shooting fad dies out before then - if it doesn't we have much bigger issues on the horizon I'm afraid.   But banning all guns tomorrow would have ZERO affect on our daily newsfeed.   In fact I think would be hella inflammatory and might even make things worse.   I think everyone agrees we need some change much faster acting and more peaceful than that!      

How long would anyone think it reasonably takes to eliminate 300+ million guns from the wild?   And how much would that cost?    I assume we'd want to fast-track such a ban, so enforcement costs alone would likely be astronomical.   Let's also not overlook the cost of compensating citizens for the property they would be deprived of.       

You’re right.  Why do anything?  It sounds hard.

They question is not "why do anything?"....

The question is...  Why do something that deprives millions of people a historical national right because of the emotional response from 11,000 people that were denied the right to live by a guy who already broke laws and directly violated the rights of the dead?     And what cost/loss/burden does it put on normal citizens across the board?

And more importantly, how did we arrive at where people who are just holding out for their rights being demonized or being constructively responsible and having to sacrifice their rights due to the couple dozen assholes who shot a few hundred people on the news??   

39% losing an article on the Bill of Rights because of the actions of a relatively small number of miscreants just doesn't seem just or fair.   Or even sensible.    It seems rash to me, considering what's at stake and the obvious lack of certainty in any 'solution'.

>>>>And more importantly, how did we arrive at where people who are just holding out for their rights being demonized.....

Three letters: "N...R...A..."

The reasonable gun owners have a small number of leaders from this organization to blame for taking such an extreme stance, IMHO.

>>>>>>Why do something that deprives millions of people a historical national right because of the emotional response from 11,000 people that were denied the right to live by a guy who already broke laws and directly violated the rights of the dead? 

Just because you say it’s your unalienable right to own any and as many guns as you want doesn’t make it so.  Also wanting firearms more heavily regulated at a Federal level isn’t an emotional response.  If you want to see some emotional responses watch some NRA videos.  Pretty heavy on the emotion fear.

>>> Either was 39% losing rights becasue of such a relatively small number just doesn't seem just or fair.   Or even sensible. <<<

Losing a right. It does seem just, fair or sensible to have gun buy-back program, more than it seems just, fair or sensible to have children, neighbors, store owners, etc., shot by someone who had a gun because they could have one. It's so sad and wrong.

I never said it was an unalienable right.     I didn't write the shit. 

On the flipside, I'd say calling a modern standard possessed by millions within the confines of the Constitution a weapon of war is heavy on the emotional fear...   Along with talk of banning it or blaming it for the shitty world we live in and the actions of a shitty few.

Demonizing the people who believe in the Bill of Rights (not even me anymore, most Constitutional Rights are already slayed or bleeding out, so IMO it matters naught... its just a fact of life and something to argue over in the name of  'security') is just the icing on the cake and def not helping progress.    

I mean we already lost most of the Constitution to sacrifices for supposed 'security' and a level of public safety that doesn't exist anymore, so why not?   the document is clearly dying, so you'll all have your wish one way or another.   And America will be no greater of better off for it.   Quite the contrary I truly believe.    

I would likely get thrown out of class in today's 4th grade U.S. History curriculum.   And happily.

You are right though Hoovs... it IS hard.

It's especially hard when we're talking about something that involves the rights and property of 39% of American households and is one of the few remaining constitutional rights that hasn't been swiss-cheesed in the name of security and paranoia... yet.   

And I also think it deserves a serious plan and smart dialogue and proceeding with caution... BECAUSE it's so historical and affects so many citizens who have followed the letter of the law and are still looking at losing another right.   We can't just proceed without a roadmap and then need another response after each new current event.  

Security is killing our rights, and without the sensationalism of modern media, I don't even think we'd have half these problems.  That's how they pull it off.  People suck and we'll never be fully secure.   Are we to just keep making historical and personal sacrifices for a world that only continues to get worse to anyone looking at a glowing screen?   It's hard and it's not going to end.    And the constitution does not have much of a spine or teeth left anymore.      I guess we all need to get with the times and call it what it really is, obsolete and full of holes.  An illusion.    Seems to me the moment anyone is convinced they're insecure, they can just slice right through it like a fog.  :/