[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

He was in the army from 2015 to 2017.

Stele wrote:

He was in the army from 2015 to 2017.

One of the articles said "infantry" but who knows what that actually means. He might have been support in an infantry battalion or divison. Could have been on profile the whole time, etc.

He left as an E-3, which after two years, either isn't saying much or it says a lot.

Reaper81 wrote:
Stele wrote:

He was in the army from 2015 to 2017.

One of the articles said "infantry" but who knows what that actually means. He might have been support in an infantry battalion or divison. Could have been on profile the whole time, etc.

He left as an E-3, which after two years, either isn't saying much or it says a lot.

AM i behind the times? I thought we were still doing 4 year commitments for enlistment.

thrawn82 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:
Stele wrote:

He was in the army from 2015 to 2017.

One of the articles said "infantry" but who knows what that actually means. He might have been support in an infantry battalion or divison. Could have been on profile the whole time, etc.

He left as an E-3, which after two years, either isn't saying much or it says a lot.

AM i behind the times? I thought we were still doing 4 year commitments for enlistment.

Last I knew that was still the rule (technically, you enlist for 8 years, 4 Active Duty, 4 Inactive Reserve), so he likely got kicked out. It's not that hard to start at an E3 if you have some college credits when you join.

I think the rule here is that if you want to go on a mass shooting, make sure you don't look like someone about to start a mass shooting until you pull the trigger the first time or you're likely to get stopped.

Atras wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:
Stele wrote:

He was in the army from 2015 to 2017.

One of the articles said "infantry" but who knows what that actually means. He might have been support in an infantry battalion or divison. Could have been on profile the whole time, etc.

He left as an E-3, which after two years, either isn't saying much or it says a lot.

AM i behind the times? I thought we were still doing 4 year commitments for enlistment.

Last I knew that was still the rule (technically, you enlist for 8 years, 4 Active Duty, 4 Inactive Reserve), so he likely got kicked out. It's not that hard to start at an E3 if you have some college credits when you join.

I think the rule here is that if you want to go on a mass shooting, make sure you don't look like someone about to start a mass shooting until you pull the trigger the first time or you're likely to get stopped.

He was discharged as a PT failure after 18 months

Clyde, 22, withdrew from Dallas Independent School District in March 2012, according to district officials. He enlisted in the Army on Aug.10, 2015, attaining the rank of private first class in the infantry. He was honorably discharged Feb. 17, 2017, records show.

Clyde only served a year-and-a-half in the Army because he could not pass his physical training test and was not deployable. That's according to several individuals who served with Clyde in the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky.

I agree with Reaper. I'm glad he was stopped before hurting anyone, but it doesn't look like he learned a thing from his time in. The Army was right to separate him. Unfortunately, most media stories are going to fixate on his veteran status, which makes average citizens think we're all mentally unstable and suffer from PTSD.

Which is particularly unfortunate in this case, because he wasn't really in a position to suffer PTSD as a result of his time in the army. I guess it's possible he experienced trauma somewhere else.

thrawn82 wrote:

I guess it's possible he experienced trauma somewhere else.

maybe somewhere that rhymes with Box Crews or Pour Fan

Is he still technically a veteran even though he was never deployed and washed out?

Nevin73 wrote:

Is he still technically a veteran even though he was never deployed and washed out?

Yes. General standard is to complete initial entry training, 180 days active-duty service, and a clean discharge to qualify as a veteran. I'll find a link.

Edit: I was wrong. 180 days is the qualifying period for the classification "prior service", which affects rank or incentives for a person attempting to rejoin the military. But "prior service" is not the same as "veteran" according to the VA.

According to this federal regulation:
To qualify for VA benefits: Minimum active-duty service requirement is twenty-four months of continuous active duty for those who enlisted after 1980.

There are, of course, several caveats that grant veteran status for purposes of VA benefits, such as serving in a combat zone. And VA benefits are not necessarily the only valid definition of a veteran. But that's the government's definition for what it's worth.

I have a brother in law who is a receives veteran benefits (VA, land grant, etc.) despite never being deployed. He was in AIT when his brother died in a motorcycle crash, and his mother got him discharged since he was the last living son. I had never heard of that before, then about a year later Saving Private Ryan came out. Didn't think it would still be a thing but at least in the mid to late 90s it was.

bighoppa wrote:

I have a brother in law who is a receives veteran benefits (VA, land grant, etc.) despite never being deployed. He was in AIT when his brother died in a motorcycle crash, and his mother got him discharged since he was the last living son. I had never heard of that before, then about a year later Saving Private Ryan came out. Didn't think it would still be a thing but at least in the mid to late 90s it was.

It sounds like he was released as a hardship discharge, which would not disqualify him from benefits if he otherwise served honorably.

thrawn82 wrote:

Which is particularly unfortunate in this case, because he wasn't really in a position to suffer PTSD as a result of his time in the army. I guess it's possible he experienced trauma somewhere else.

MST, or military sexual trauma, is a possible source. In my brief career working at the VA, many male veterans communicated sexual assault experiences and/or rape.

However, I am not aware of a link between sexual trauma and being a POS mass shooter.

Reaper81 wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Which is particularly unfortunate in this case, because he wasn't really in a position to suffer PTSD as a result of his time in the army. I guess it's possible he experienced trauma somewhere else.

MST, or military sexual trauma, is a possible source. In my brief career working at the VA, many male veterans communicated sexual assault experiences and/or rape.

However, I am not aware of a link between sexual trauma and being a POS mass shooter.

That's a good point. In a related note, the world is awful.

A Florida woman spent fives days in jail without bail for grand theft and armed burglary because she showed up at a police station and turned over firearms owned by her estranged husband.

Her husband was in jail because he repeatedly hit her car with his car and tried to run her off the road after a divorce hearing. He was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and was ordered to surrender any firearms before he would be released.

The problem is that Florida doesn't have any mechanism to ensure that when a court orders someone they consider a threat to surrender their firearms that it actually happens.

The man only spent three days in jail. A judge modified his pretrial release so he could attend an out-of-state conference for work. I don't know if that was the same judge that approved the Florida woman's request for a restraining order against him.

Thoughts and prayers.

NRATV to shut down.