Comments
  1. You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • jlcipriani6 years ago

      This article states that it did not appear that this particular shooter had a conceal carry permit for the weapon used. It does not indicate whether he had any kind of permit to own the weapon, or if an owner's permit (as distinguished from a carry permit) is required for this weapon in Florida. In New Jersey, the DUI conviction would not render him ineligible for a gun permit unless there were additional proofs that he was a, "habitual drunkard." The marijuana possession charge would only disqualify him if it was a felony conviction carrying a sentence of more than 6 months. The article noted that the police had been called to the same workplace where he committed these murders for a battery complaint. However, there is no indication of a conviction. A charge without a conviction would not be a disqualifier in the absence of additional negative indicators.

      I find the most chilling aspect of this incident is that it illustrates the impossibility of assessing the risk of violence from an offended employee or co-worker or casual acquaintance or work contact. In short, how does one distinguish between the merely odd, the definitely weird and the deeply crazy?

      • bill
        Top reader of all time
        6 years ago

        What's a "habitual drunkard" according to the law? I think I could obtain proofs that most people I know are habitual drunkards.

        • jlcipriani6 years ago

          Life as a habitual drunkard in 1928:

          There is ample evidence that the husband was guilty of acts of extreme cruelty toward his wife; that he was a habitual drunkard; that he called her vile and abusive names; that he groundlessly accused her of immoral conduct, repeating this charge on the witness stand; that his personal habits were filthy, making it impossible for his wife to occupy the same bed with him; that his abuse and hostility finally resulted in two separate physical assaults upon her, in February, 1928, which resulted in a criminal charge against him.

          Michels v. Michels, 110 N.J. Eq. 393, 394, 160 A. 518, 518 (1932)

          • bill
            Top reader of all time
            6 years ago

            Fascinating! So, to clarify: In NJ, you can have a DUI and still get a gun. You lose the right to a gun only if you are also accused of being a "habitual drunkard," meaning, abusive toward your wife.

            Doesn't that seem wrong? Shouldn't DUI be enough? What if "habitual drunkard" doesn't even have a wife? Seems quite likely, given those filthy personal habits.

            • jlcipriani6 years ago

              The single DUI standard seems pretty harsh to me. The implication is that if one has the poor judgment to drive after having drunk more than the legal limit then one is too likely to exhibit poor judgment in managing a firearm. However, if you read the information below, I am pretty sure you will be able to think of a ton of people whose judgment you generally respect who could easily have gotten a DUI at some point.

              "In New Jersey, a person is guilty of drunk driving if he/she operates a motor vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or greater. BAC refers to the amount of alcohol in your blood. Although the law refers to a 0.08 percent BAC, you can be convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor even when your BAC is below 0.08 percent. Consuming even small amounts of alcohol dulls the senses, decreases reaction time, and hampers judgement, vision and alertness. If you consume any amount of alcohol and your driving is negatively impacted, you can be convicted of drunk driving." from DMV (MVA) website.

              There is no exact answer to determine how much you have to drink to reach the legal limit for driving or flying. However, there is a way to approximate whether you are approaching the legal limit in your state (usually 0.08 blood alcohol level) based on your weight, how much you have had to drink, and how long you have been drinking. For example:

              If you are around 100 lbs., you can generally only have about one serving of alcohol before being over 0.08, and only two servings before being above 0.1 (for those states where the legal limit 0.1) However, a person is closer to 160 lbs. can have about 3 servings of alcohol and still be below the legal limit for driving A good rule of thumb to use is that no matter what your weight is, if you have had three servings of alcohol in rapid succession you are most likely over the legal limit for blood alcohol level when driving.

              Your blood alcohol level will also depend on how much time you have spent drinking. If you have a spaced your drinks out over a lengthy period of time, such as the span of a few hours, your blood alcohol level is going to be significantly lower than if you had the same amount of drinks in the span of one hour. Generally, you can subtract 0.01% from your estimated blood alcohol level for each 40 minutes that go by while drinking.

              What Is 1 Serving of Alcohol? Keep in mind the amount of alcohol that constitutes 1 serving differs depending on the type of drink. For example, 12 oz. of hard liquor is a far greater amount of alcohol than 12 oz. of beer, and as a result will have a much greater impact on your blood alcohol level. Generally, the rule is 1 serving of alcohol is equal to 1 oz. of 100 proof liquor, a 12 oz. beer, or 4 oz. of table wine.

              • bill
                Top reader of all time
                6 years ago

                Very interesting. And, yes, you're 100% right. In fact, I can go even one step further: I know people who HAVE DUIs and who I still think are generally good people with generally good judgment. They'd surely be fine with a gun.

                But, I also just think too many people have them. And too many of them are crazy. And the laws (to me) seem to be all over the place. So, basically, I gotta really read more to have an opinion, basically :)

      • jeff6 years ago

        One fact that stuck out to me is that the shooter was an army veteran. Veterans as a group have significantly higher rates of mental illness and suicide compared to the general population. As impossible as it may be to assess the risk of violence for any given individual, I feel like dedicating more resources to support this high-risk group which makes up 7.3% of the total population would be a step in the right direction.

        • bill
          Top reader of all time
          6 years ago

          Agreed.

    • jamie6 years ago

      I read the wikipedia article, it stated those studies had a bias slant. I feel very strongly that those results were cooked to create the desired result. But I do realize I also have a bias slant.

      • jeff6 years ago

        Even going with the lowest end of the lowest estimate we're still talking about an average of 151 incidents of defensive gun use per day (almost every 10 minutes). That study was done by a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Not exactly an NRA internet poll.

        Maybe I'm reading too much into your original comment, but it seems like you feel that there should be a change in policy regarding the purchasing and/or carrying of firearms. If so I'd be curious to know what specific changes you would like to see happen. I wouldn't take it as a given that I'd disagree with them and perhaps we could find some common ground. I certainly wouldn't refute the notion that the purchasing and carrying of firearms should be regulated and that certain restrictions could play a hand in preventing needless loss of life.

        • bill
          Top reader of all time
          6 years ago

          1.) Professors are human. Just like the rest of us, they can be easily bought, even when they work at illustrious institutions like Harvard. (Note the hundreds of "inconclusive" studies on tobacco and health.)

          2.) Jeff's second paragraph hits the nail squarely on the head. Jamie - what say you to that?

    • jamie6 years ago

      people who advocate for gun rights always say it is safer to have a society that is armed to protect the good people. I disagree with this premise, possibly this would have never happened if the killer did not have easy assess to a weapon. Where were the good people with their guns? The disturbed killer ended up killing himself.

      • jeff6 years ago

        It is common for workplaces to ban firearms on premises. The article did not specify if this was the policy at Fiamma, but it is a plausible explanation as to why none of the other employees were armed.

        I would consider myself an advocate for gun rights, but I don't feel like it's a binary distinction unless you are taking the position that no citizen should ever be allowed to own or carry a firearm; I certainly wouldn't suggest the inverse should be the case.

        The single largest mass shooting in history occurred only a few years ago in Norway, a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Less than a year ago in France a single terrorist used a truck to kill 86 people. There are an unlimited number of ways for an attacker to inflict mass causalities, but there is only one way to enable individuals, especially the most vulnerable members of society, to defend themselves: by not infringing on their right to keep and bare arms.

        The reason we don't often hear about individuals using guns to protect themselves might be because it happens so frequently that it isn't newsworthy. The absolute lowest estimate for incidents of defensive gun use per year puts the figures at 55,000-80,000 with the high end being 4.7 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use