Esme Murphy: "concealed carry" = Bryn Mawr "massacre"

[Pinnacle]

Again the whole issue is irrelevant.

[cobb]

Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan says Andrew Engeldinger, the shooter in the Bryn Mawr massacre, purchased his weapons legally.

What Dolan could not tell me in an interview on WCCO-AM on Saturday is whether Engeldinger had a conceal and carry permit.

But whether Andrew Engeldinger had such a permit is one question I hope is eventually answered. Because it’s one the public and the victim’s families deserve to know.

Why?
It is more relevant as to why and under what conditions he was fired. If he had a permit to carry has no more bearing than if he had a driver's license or acquired the vehicle legally that he used to transport him to the business that he carried out this killing.

[ijosef]

I agree that Murphy's little editorial is largely irrelevant, but I think it's worth discussing how wrong he is.

It looks like people are tearing him up pretty good in the comments section anyway, and it's obvious to anyone with some critical thinking skills and the ability to do a bit of research that the guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Esme is a women:

Fail.





Does she have any nudes?

[tman]

I followed her suggestion and sent her a tweet, along with a comment on her blog, wondering why no one shot back, and perhaps that's a question worth answering.

[Humphrey Bogart]

I followed her suggestion and sent her a tweet, along with a comment on her blog, wondering why no one shot back, and perhaps that's a question worth answering.

+1

[oneunder]

Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan says Andrew Engeldinger, the shooter in the Bryn Mawr massacre, purchased his weapons legally.

What Dolan could not tell me in an interview on WCCO-AM on Saturday is whether Engeldinger had a conceal and carry permit.

But whether Andrew Engeldinger had such a permit is one question I hope is eventually answered. Because it’s one the public and the victim’s families deserve to know.

Why?
It is more relevant as to why and under what conditions he was fired. If he had a permit to carry has no more bearing than if he had a driver's license or acquired the vehicle legally that he used to transport him to the business that he carried out this killing.

To create a public fear that equates permits with gun violence. Once that happens, the gun control advocates have a better chance of 'winning' on their stance. Then they can feel good about themselves and sleep better at night (at least that is what they believe). It is nothing more then people wanting to gain moral superiority over a group of people. Oh, and come on...think of the childrem

[photogpat]

To create a public fear that equates permits with gun violence. Once that happens, the gun control advocates have a better chance of 'winning' on their stance. Then they can feel good about themselves and sleep better at night (at least that is what they believe). It is nothing more then people wanting to gain moral superiority over a group of people. Oh, and come on...think of the childrem

You're exactly right. The Carry Permit advocates nationwide have used the statistics that Permit Holders are by far more law-abiding than the general public. Anti-rights advocates use every opportunity they can to push the agenda that the permitted carrying of more firearms in public creates more "gun violence" (just see Joan's blog, she treats any incident involving a permit holder as "ANOTHER" example of why "gunz r bad"). Mayor Ryback and Chief Dolan are playing the dialogue just "right" to throw a little doubt into the more law-abiding arguments. It doesn't matter what the actual statistics are...just how the public perceives carry permits.

Although the nationwide coverage of this story has been fairly spotty, and the focus has been shined on mental health treatment rather than the tool the psycho used. This is a good thing! In most of the "mass shooting" incidents in the last 10 years, untreated previous mental issues seem to be a recurring theme.

[rugersol]

they can to push the agenda that the permitted carrying of more firearms in public creates more "gun violence"

... back to my point ... she's a "news" anchor ... I'll bet if she was "pushing the pro-life agenda" the station'd hear 'bout it!

I don't watch local "news" anyhow ... but anyone happen to know who sponsors it, on CBS?!

[Humphrey Bogart]

Im thinking theres a less than 50% chance he had a permit...because of history of mental health problems....an involuntary confinment / treatment would dq you from a permit, I believe.

[Shipyard]

Im thinking theres a less than 50% chance he had a permit...because of history of mental health problems....an involuntary confinment / treatment would dq you from a permit, I believe.

careful though... ou ever notice how AFTER an incident like this, the perp had "mental issues" or "seemed crazy"... but BEFORE they shot the hell out of everybody none of their friends/family/employers thorught it was an issue enough to alert, notify or even SUGGEST to someone outside the situation that there might be a problem?

after the fact, a bunch of family who are NOT licenced health care ANYTHING and a buch of hack reporters get to decide that someone had an issue. it's **** insulting to people who actualy need help.....

[photogpat]

Im thinking theres a less than 50% chance he had a permit...because of history of mental health problems....an involuntary confinment / treatment would dq you from a permit, I believe.

careful though... ou ever notice how AFTER an incident like this, the perp had "mental issues" or "seemed crazy"... but BEFORE they shot the hell out of everybody none of their friends/family/employers thorught it was an issue enough to alert, notify or even SUGGEST to someone outside the situation that there might be a problem?

after the fact, a bunch of family who are NOT licenced health care ANYTHING and a buch of hack reporters get to decide that someone had an issue. it's **** insulting to people who actualy need help.....

I think its a combination of not wanting to get involved, and the litigitious (legal) society we live in today. People don't want to "turn someone in" for fear that they'll get sued. Also parents don't want to admit that their own children need help.

Aside from calling the cops for a direct threat - what does one even DO if you suspect someone may have tendencies like this guy?

[rugersol]

what does one even DO if you suspect someone may have tendencies like this guy?

I think that's where we're gonna get into trouble!

Kinda like the deal with PTSD fer returning vets!

As soon as there's a law/ordinance requiring some sort of "mental health" check/test/whatever, yer gonna be right back where we were 'fore Shall Issue!

This is a mere distraction! 10's of thousands (needlessly) die every year ... in car crashes! No one is even considering banning cars! ... 'cause everyone wants to drive! ... with their phone! All those deaths are the "cost" of that freedom!

People will kill each other 'til the end of time! ... by any means!

Attempts to prevent them from doing so will only ever affect those, who won't!

This was a tragedy! ... 100% unavoidable! ... in a free country!

[Pinnacle]

LIke a nice BCA Guy said to me one time, there is no law against being nuts - even to have a permit and act like a nut is not illegal. Bottom line - permit or not - ANYONE can snap.

This is the reason for carry in the first place.

[tman]

It's easily possible that he had a permit and was mentally ill at the same time.

Let's say he got his permit 4 years ago. Passes the background check, the whole works. Then, he starts to become symptomatic of some mental illness, or other, say schizophrenia, and his family pushes him away because he's acting nuts. He's either; never treated, or he sees a psychologist, or psychiatrist, and is never hospitalized.

If his record stays clean, and he's never committed, no background check will show him to be ineligible. If his family didn't know he had a permit (maybe he never told them), they wouldn't be able to alert anyone in advance that he might be a danger to go postal.

AND, he'd still have a year left before renewal.

Not too difficult to imagine.

[rthib]

If his family didn't know he had a permit (maybe he never told them), they wouldn't be able to alert anyone in advance that he might be a danger to go postal.

I don't follow this line of logic.
What does the family knowing or not knowing if he had a permit have to do with them alerting anyone?
You don't need a Permit to Carry to purchase a firearm.
You don't need a permit to get fired, go to your house, pick up a firearm, drive back to you workplace and start shooting people - All of that is illegal, so Permit doesn't help.

It was obvious from reports that everyone knew he owned a firearm, so if they had concerns they should alert someone.