Jacksonville Sheriff Crushes Gun Control Narrative: ‘The Problem is the Individual’
“If I could take my gun off right now, and I lay it on this counter, nothing will happen. It’ll sit there — but as soon as wicked person grabs ahold of that handgun and starts shooting people with it — there’s the problem.”
Jacksonville County Sheriff T.K. Waters went off on people who jumped on the shooting that killed three black people to push their anti-gun narrative.
Waters fed them a truth pill:
“The story is always about guns — people are bad — this guy’s a bad guy,” Waters said. “If I could take my gun off right now, and I lay it on this counter, nothing will happen. It’ll sit there — but as soon as wicked person grabs ahold of that handgun and starts shooting people with it — there’s the problem.”
“The problem is the individual,” he added. “Now guns are a tool that people use to do horrible things. But it’s the individuals that wield these things. So we are working hard to try to stop that. But in this situation, in this case, there was nothing saying—, there was nothing illegal about him owning the firearms.”
Jacksonville County Sheriff T.K. Waters:
“The story is always about guns. People are bad. This guy's a bad guy. If I could take my gun off right now, and I lay it on this counter, nothing will happen. It'll sit there, but as soon as a wicked person grabs ahold of that handgun… pic.twitter.com/BODSLiEXCI
— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) August 27, 2023
Good for Waters.
The left never wants to blame the perpetrator. It’s always someone else’s fault, especially politicians, because it’s just way too easy to get guns! Mental health! Society! Trump!
Ryan Christopher Palmeter had many manifestos and writings filled with hatred towards minorities. I wrote about how the Jacksonville police released the writings, but we still don’t have the Nashville shooter’s manifesto.
Palmeter killed himself.
Palmeter also bought the guns legally. He did not have a criminal record or red flags.
But one thing makes the mental health screams become questionable and a slippery slope.
In 2017, Palmeter “was briefly held under a state law called the Baker Act, which states a person can be ‘taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination’ during a mental health crisis.”
Will the left use this as a way to control who can get a gun in Florida? Where would it stop? You have doctor-patient privilege. Also, the majority of people who have a mental health crisis (I had a small one a few years ago) are not violent people, nor are we racist or hateful.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
In spite of the fact that no law did or could have stopped this “scumbag,” which is a common refrain among most commenting on the tragedy, Jacksonville’s newly-elected Donk mayor calls for —
more gun control.
Jacksonville’s mayor speaks out on gun legislation following tragic shooting.
“I am absolutely a proponent of common sense gun legislation,” Mayor Donna Deegan said on MSNBC on Sunday, warning Florida is “going backwards” on the issue.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/florida-shooting-bahama-breeze-jacksonville-b2400418.html
So am I. The legislation we have now is anything but common sense!
For one thing, it makes no sense that suppressors and barrel shrouds, safety features that on any other product would probably be required by law, are quasi-illegal.
It makes no sense that if you happen to be out of your state of residence and start to feel unsafe you can’t buy a weapon from a dealer and walk out with it, you have to get it shipped to a dealer in your state, which will do you no good until you get home. It makes no sense that if you’re visiting from a foreign country you can’t buy a weapon from a dealer at all. Not to mention all the states where you can’t carry if you’re not from there, so tourists are easy targets.
so you’re OK with the millions of border crashers buying guns?
What???? The border crashers are illegally here. Milhouse was discussing legal avenues. I am certain that any Cartel, Quds or CCP forces that have crossed the border already have their arms.
Crimes can and are committed against the border crashers. What are they to do? Admittedly, by breaking the law they are setting themselves up for this. Which is worse… being a victim of crime or being safely deported if needed?
Oh so you think border crashers go into a gun store to buy a gun legally? Really?
Actually, yes, so long as they are not violent criminals, I think they have a 2nd amendment right to buy guns, just like anyone else. The RKBA is not limited to US citizens, any more than the freedom of speech is.
The constitution protects every person who is present in the USA, regardless of how they got there. And the rights it protects are endowed to all men by their Creator, and therefore obviously apply everywhere in the world.
As another blogger put it: “I’m not opposed to gun control. I’m opposed to stupid and useless gun control.”
The problem is that pretty much ALL of our current “gun control” laws and proposals, are stupid and/or useless.
Suppressors, for example: In most of Europe — that same Europe the Left thinks the U.S. should be more like — firearm suppressors are considered basic safety equipment, and are thus required for hunting and most target shooting.
I’m not saying they should be required here, but I do think they are basic safety equipment and shouldn’t be regulated apart from simple consumer safety, and if you have the knowledge, skill, and desire to build your own at home, have at it!
Their “common sense gun legislation” is full confiscation. It’s what totalitarians do.
Those for gun control, please raise your hands,
https://i.imgflip.com/386fyp.jpg
The “common sense” part of the phrase represents the vile Dumb-o-crats’ typically dishonest and euphemistic deception.
Oh, it’s just a “common sense” proposal? Surely, no “reasonable” citizen would be opposed to that. Pure marketing lingo.
Similar to how the Dumb-o-crat got wise and started adopting private sector lingo, by, referring to federal spending not as “spending,” but, as alleged “investments.”
It’s safe. AND effective.
I just wish Ukraine would enact stricter gun control laws. All they need to do is make it illegal for Russians to carry guns on Ukrainian soil, and the war would immediately end!
John Drake never carried a gun; yet he prevailed in every Danger Man episode.
It’s a very British thing. “John Steed never used a gun,” either, and (before his death) Patrick Macnee routinely bragged about this… but a simple perusal of the series shows this claim to be a flat lie.
McGoohan was adamant – no guns and no kissy face.
McGoohan also turned down being 007 for those reasons. Roger Moore hated guns but surely made a living with them (007 and The Wild Geese). The classic opening to The Avengers (In Color) has Peel shooting the cork off a bottle of bubbly.
Spoiler alert: John Drake wasn’t real.
It’s not a refutation. Both sides agree that it’s the individual. It’s on “what is to be done” that there’s a difference.
The 2nd amendment settled that though. Nothing.
No, the Communists think that getting rid of the tool will keep individuals from using other tools badly too
No. They plan to destroy the USA and replace it with their fascist utopia. A utopia where they rule a one party state without the constraints of fair elections and our constitution. They know that citizens would resist their tyranny using their firearms. Their quest for gun control has the goal of banning all citizen owned firearms and violating our 2nd amendment civil rights in order to prevent resistance to their tyranny.
With respect, I believe you are incorrect. Both sides do NOT agree that it’s the individual.
Sure, both sides talk about the individual as the problem, but you can tell what each side really believes by their proposed solutions. Actions speak louder than words.
The Right will propose better access to mental health services, expanding gun rights and CCW access, and de-listing “gun free zones” so CCW licensees can carry more places. IOW, empowering individuals to respond to individuals, wherever they go.
The Left’s solution is always wide-spread “gun control”. Not one proposal from the Left is limited to individuals; their ideas affect everyone. Even “Red Flag” laws, which supposedly target and disarm potentially-dangerous individuals, are only made possible by attacking everyone’s “due process” rights.
So yes, both sides talk about the individual. But for all the talk, the Left’s solutions make it abundantly clear: they think the real problem is everyone else’s gun rights.
My S&W .357 doesn’t have provision for either. I don’t even have to take a life in a survival situation. If I discharge it beside your head you will be disoriented for 5-10 seconds.
Palmeter also bought the guns legally. He did not have a criminal record or red flags.
I heard that he had some mental health issues. Maybe they did not rise to the level of an actual red flag.. Not sure.
There are lots of people with mental health ‘issues’ when we include the tens of millions on some mild anti depression RX. One could make the case for birth control pills as regulating mood swings via hormones. Then there are all the folks whose Parents wanted an ‘accommodation’ plan to give them an edge while they were Students so they wrangled a diagnosis.
IMO the bar for a mental health trigger should be higher. We should be scrutinizing the folks involuntarily committed and those who repeatedly violate civil norms by making threats, who attack strangers or a series of coworkers or lovers. Add in the generic ‘loner kid’ who was bullied, doesn’t have a stable home and has a history of escalating violence. Particularly those who injure or kill animals for perverse pleasure. (not hunting, ranching or farming)
This kid was Baker-Acted for domestic violence.
Checked all the necessary medical history boxes right there.
Question H on the 4473 form asks:
“Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”
It’s said that the killer was involuntarily hospitalized for 72 hours back when he was 15 years old (six years ago) under the FL Baker Act, but there’s now some question if it was an actual Baker Act case. Since he was a minor at the time, that also complicates the matter.
Regardless, that doesn’t qualify as “adjudication as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” But IANAL.
A 72-hour hold under the Baker Act is an evaluation, not an involuntary commitment. Depending on the results, it could lead to an involuntary commitment, but that’s not what it is.
The Republicans should pursue a different form of gun control. Male abusing the 2nd amendment by committing a serious crime with a firearm or being a felon in possession of a firearm a federal crime punished by 30 years in federal prison . This is on top of the punishment for the original state crime.
Every US Attorney could do that now using the statutes on books though more like 5-10 years v 30 years. As a separate sovereign the Feds could gain a conviction and impose prison term to run after the State prison term.