this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1102 points (95.2% liked)

Memes

45745 readers
2006 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Here we go again...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are no red flag laws in Maine. There was no legal way to take his guns even if they thought that was necessary. Also, the christofacist supreme court is set to strike down laws that prevent people convicted domestic violence from owning guns, which will chip away at the legality of red flag laws everywhere. Happy Thursday everyone!

[–] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If he was a reservist, I'm pretty sure his commander could've ordered him to surrender his weapons.

And the bar under the UCMJ to do deal with a suicidal/homicidal troop is way lower than what it is for a civilian.

[–] rjs001@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you think he would listen to him but not to the laws making what he did illegal?

[–] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

It's not about listening, it's about the commander issuing an order, which has the same weight as a judge issuing a warrant, to actually take the weapons from his possession/home. An order that MPs and local law enforcement can legally go and execute.

Though I think this whacko is ultimately responsible for this ill and evil shit, I think the commander might've been negligent here not doing more. (If indeed the gunmen was institutionalized, and the commander was aware of that fact.)

And yes, I think the lack of any red flag laws in that state is insane, and that such laws likely could've helped here. I'm just making a point that more realistically could've have been done given the situation as it existed in that moment.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People get wrapped around the axle about this. If you don't know the military doesn't turn you into John Wick. Most people in the military have never been issued a gun outside of qual, but all are given a bare minimum level of training just in case things got dire.

Annual (if that) weapons training is basically "don't tk your buddies 101" a bit of shooting to prove you can and cleaning after. You only get more if direct combat is your actual job, or will be soon.

Just like anything else if you want to get good you have to put in some effort on your own time.

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I read your reply as "He was a weapons instructor and therefore cannot burn a fuse and go on a psychotic rampage". I believe that is what the exchange was about before you replied. The question people are asking is "Why did he have guns" and not "How was he trained to use them".

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's not what I'm saying. He had a pretty good "why" for having easy access to weapons until he was checked into a mental institution. If he was a danger to himself or others I bet they could have prevented him from getting weapons. I'm interested to see why they chose not to or how their attempts failed.

I admit it was a deviation from the subject and might have been confusing. Every time this guy's background is brought up people tend to think military training is some forbidden knowledge that citizens don't have access to, which isn't the case at all.