Most of Victory Park, surrounding area on lockdown as Dallas police deal with active shooter
Source: Dallas Morning News
Dallas police say they are responding to a Victory Park apartment complex with reports of an “active shooter” in the building.
A source tells The Dallas Morning News that the man is in his mid-30s and was in the midst of being evicted from the Vista Apartments building on N. Houston Street. Sources also indicate the suspect has been arrested before.
At 12:03 p.m. Dallas police reported they “deployed a flash bang into the apartment of active shooter … as a distraction device.” TV reporters at the scene reported an “extremely loud sound.”
Dallas police say they can’t confirm at the moment.
Read more: http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/03/dallas-police-responding-to-active-shooter-situation-in-victory-park-area-apartment.html/
Live video at http://www.dallasnews.com/ .
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
calimary
(81,209 posts)Okay let's see… "suspect has been arrested before…"
...and can still get a gun?
Good Grief. This is getting RIDICULOUS.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)1. Arrest does not imply conviction.
2. Conviction may not be a disqualifier, if not a felony.
3. He may have had the gun prior to that arrest/conviction, if a disqualifier, and illegally refused to surrender the weapon.
4. He may be disqualified, but stole it.
5. He may be disqualified, but purchased it on the black market.
etc.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)I would venture a guess there are more than double the ways you listed.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)When asked, the most common method convicted criminals tell the DoJ they got their guns was from a friend or family member, without regard to them being a felon/disqualified recipient.
There are boatloads of ways.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)Misdemeanors not involving domestic violence wouldn't disqualify him from owning a firearm.
Then again, unless he's convicted, he's still qualified to own firearms. An arrest isn't grounds to remove his 2A right, just as it's not grounds to remove his voting right.
Hope no one gets injured or killed.
hack89
(39,171 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)you can buy guns from private individuals with no regulation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You only face regulation of automobiles if you want to license it for use on public roads.
An interesting analogy to the Concealed Pistol License, actually, since it is required to carry concealed in public.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)you must at least obtain a title. Yes, you don't have to register it, but if you want to call it yours you must go to the state and get that piece of paper. But we can't even bother the gun humpers by something so innoculous.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Only true of vehicles that you intend to operate on public roads.
I have a vehicle with no title at all, and that is perfectly fine because it is not stolen, and will never be operated on a public road again, ever.
Edit: I should add the caveat, that some state laws vary on this point. For instance, a title is not necessary after 10 years in Rhode Island.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)While cars and boats are personal property, and require a title and registration to operate them on public motorways/waterways, guns are considered household property under law. You don't sign a title form to sell jewery, TVs, tools, or any other form of household property. And household property is exempt from separate property taxes.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)While true, it is a shame. I can't go around killing people willy nilly with a necklace. They are made to do one thing- kill people. And if we don't come up with some way to start regulating them then we will just have to keep putting up with public shootings. I wonder how many kids will die in the next school shooting, and how few people will give a damn because guns give them an erection.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)True, but you could do so with just about any knife in your kitchen. No to mention axes and baseball bats. Hell, axes have a long history of use in warfare. They make good horror movie props too.
The rest of your post is somewhat over the top. Given that there are roughly the same amount of guns in the country as people, it's pretty clear that the VAST majority of guns will never be used to kill or harm a person. Given the very common use in marksmanship sporting and hunting, I would say that they have other uses than killing people. I agree that they generally are made to do one thing - They always launch projectiles at high velocity. The key to use is knowing where said high velocity projectile is aimed. There are plenty of legal activities that involve NOT aiming them at people.
If you are uneasy with hunting since guns are used to kill animals, I direct you to the irony of the modern mass production of food. For some reason it's perfectly OK for some people to accept that cows get a spike to the head (which doesn't always kill right away) or chickens get hung by their feet on a conveyor belt until a circular saw lops the head off, all because the meat comes in pretty little plastic packages in a grocery store. On the other hand, it's terrible to kill animals that were kept free range and have often grown in population to such large numbers that disease and starvation are risks (White Tailed Deer for instance). I'll add that venison is pretty damn tasty, especially the steaks from the back.
As for erections, this is rather puerile when it comes to a discussion. It's clear that nearly all men get erections from thoughts of or pictures of woman, unless they are gay in which case it's hot men. I know of none that get erections from a metal object. And clearly sex is out of the question here - the average human phallus is over one inch in diameter, while most gun barrels are less than half an inch in diameter. I think the chafing alone would kill any ecstasy moment. And then there are the millions of women that own guns. I could continue but I hope you have gotten the point...
Your post was a classic example of why the two sides of the gun discussion usually do not talk. If you toned it down a bit, a productive discussion could probably happen.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)with an axe and kill 30 people? My problem with guns is that, even here, we have people who are diametrically opposed to registering guns. What is the big deal about registering them with you guys? Do you secretly believe that you are going to fight off the US government with your hoard that they don't know about? When people try to tone it down we have some people that insist on coming up with comments like "guns are a different class of property" or "I only use them for target practice" to argue against any form of legislation whatsoever.
on edit: changed "type" to "class"
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Before guns were invented.
Those who believe guns are the sole problem in the world, that guns are an evil corrupting force in the world, that if all the guns in the world were destroyed, we would suddenly have World Peace™ and we could all hold hands and sit in the shade and sing Kumbaya, then they are exceedingly naive, and that is being polite.
They ignore thousands of years of human history where people slaughtered each other with rocks, sticks, bone tools, then eventually progressed to edged metal weapons, then to gunpowder and firearms. Because ignoring all that would mean the real problem isn't weapons, it is that humans like to kill one another and will find any means to do so. And it hard, near impossible, for some to blame human beings. It is a lot easier to blame an inanimate object.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)that most of the rest of the civilized countries of the world don't? We cannot have serious discussions about the firearm problem in this country when people refuse to see we have a big, fucking problem that Europe, New Zealand, and Australia do not.
juajen
(8,515 posts)with primitive weapons, to todays guns and ammunition and bombs that can pulverise villages and AR's that can kill many people with a sustained blast. Don't worry, the ninja star is still legal.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)If it was as simple as just providing a serial number for traceability, I think it wouldn't get so much resistance. Many people including myself have listed serial numbers with local police in case of theft already. But the proposals usually come with fees. So while the ownership of a firearm is a civil right of citizens, suddenly people have to pay fees to exercise that right. How much will the fees be? Will they stay constant or rise dramatically? And those fees require a license or permit, which must be renewed every so often. It's like having to acquire a permit to vote or engage in free speech in one's own home. What happens if someone doesn't use their firearm (it's just stored) and they forget to renew the license or permit? Do they get arrested or have their door kicked in? Will a permit or license come with mandatory storage inspections, such that the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches is violated by being required to let police in on a routine basis? None of the above questions are out of the blue. Mandatory police inspections have been proposed. Fees of $100 per gun per year or more have been proposed. Licenses or permit with yearly renewals have been proposed. All to keep some household property within my own home.
Now look at the attitudes of people who are proposing registration. They are usually extremely disdainful of gun owners. It's similar to having the American Family Association propose laws that Gays must live under. There is Zero trust between each side.
Most gun owners fight most proposals of the other side of this issue because they don't trust the other side. Would you entrust your civil rights and financial security with someone who expresses extreme contempt for you?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I do own guns- a 1911 and a Beretta 12 gauge shotgun. They were purchased from firearms dealers, so there was a background check. I feel all gun sales should require background checks. Should registration be required I would comply without complaint, and if an annual fee requires so be it. I also think periodical psychological testing of gun owners should be done, also.
on edit: think of it as the cost of owning a gun. Gun sports aren't cheap to begin with, so those who can afford to do it can afford a small annual fee.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Why not require periodical psychological testing of all registered voters. Why not require a license or poll tax? (assume the 24th amendment didn't exist).
While you may want to pay a fee, millions of others may not. I was once friends with a nice couple in Lincoln Co. WV who hunted deer to feed their family. They had 7 children, including 2 sets of twins, and lived in a two bedroom house with no running water or sanitation. When the outhouse hole filled up, they just lifted it up and moved the shack a few feet over. Some of the images of their house have never left me, like seeing spiral fly paper that was so covered with flies as to have almost no white tape showing. How much would you like to charge them for an annual fee? Is gun ownership only for the rich?
You stated that you are not disdainful of gun owners as you are one yourself. Then why do you own a 1911, a military design handgun that is as you stated earlier is "made to do one thing- kill people"? Do you intend to kill people? Or is it because it gives you an "erection"? Reading your prior posts has to make one wonder. I personally own firearms because I like to target shoot at a proper range from time to time and as of this year, provided myself a freezer full of venison.
I agree with universal background checks. To ensure the highest compliance, I'd set a fee at no more than $5 and make the form and check available at any government building or firearms retailer. There are usually notaries available at government buildings. But I will never support a fee or permit to own my firearms. I own them right now and pay nothing. Why would I want to make it such that a bureaucratic snafu could result in police kicking down my door to confiscate them because someone misplaced a check? And then there is the BIG question: If I have to pay a fee each year to just store a firearm in my home, do I really own it or am I just leasing it? I pay fees to register a car for operation on Public roads. And the town/state uses that fee to maintain said roads. What public service am I using to keep a firearm in my house? The answer is simple - NONE.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)so why not use the fee from licensing to set up and pay for the infrastructure required for universal background checks? You will have to set up places for people to make the transaction, whether it is the local police department or gun store. Something has to pay for it. As far as right goes, a bunch of people privately owning guns is not a well regulated militia. The Supreme Court may say it is, but that is the same body that got Dred Scot wrong, too. Yes, that was eventually corrected, and hopefully they get the other one fixed, too.
On edit- I didn't answer your question about the 1911. I inherited it from my grandfather. I have taken in to the range a few times, but that is it. Other than sentimentality, I really have no use for it.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)I will note that I proposed a $5 fee for Universal Background Checks, but opposed registration fees. As for background checks, the infrastructure is already in place, with the automated computer systems and such. All one needs is some training and a whole lot of forms. The increase in people paying for the checks would easily make up any additional administrative costs.
As for your statement about the right to keep and bear arms, I'll frankly state that we will have to agree to disagree as i'm sure this discussion wouldn't settle the issue. I do chuckle that you compare District of Columbia v. Heller to Dred Scot, considering that opponents of Roe v. Wade do so as well. It's become the hallmark comparison for those angry with a court decision. In this instance, Heller is more like Roe v. Wade in that both reaffirmed and upheld rights of the people. The Dred Scott case denied the right of liberty to millions of human beings by denying that they were in fact entitled to such a right.
The concept that only a "well regulated militia" can own firearms is just flat out wrong. The amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the fact that an armed citizenry was needed to have a well regulated militia was provided as a justification. Well regulated means well ordered, as opposed to the modern sense of rules and laws. Given the rather abysmal performance of militia in the War for Independence, it is easy to see why the founding fathers were concerned. The militia is by definition civilians who are not professional soldiers and have been called into service to help defend their homes/state/country. The Founding fathers were hoping that citizens would think of firearms ownership as a civic duty, providing a large pool of well equipped and knowledgeable people who could effectively repel an invasion. You were however not required to actually be in a militia.
Originally the country was not supposed to have a standing army, but the Napoleonic Wars soon demonstrated the modern requirement to have a professional army. Hastily armed and gathered armies made of regular peasants were crushed time and time again. While some people think wrongly that the National guard is our militia, they are actually professionally trained and paid, unlike actual militias. They for instance go through the same basic training as other army units, with the only distinction being that they are part time professional soldiers. In that regard, they are like the reserve units of other countries. Despite the use of professional armies today, the provisions to call on civilians to help repel an invasion are still law, and if we ever faced a serious invasion I'm sure many citizens would volunteer.
Turbineguy
(37,317 posts)for Wayne Lapierre.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Hope everyone is okay.
TexasTowelie
(112,102 posts)However, it has closed down most of the Arts District. It is an active area with a lot of people working and visiting the museums. People are being warned to stay away and the streets in that area are closed.
DART Bus Routes 49, 52 and 59 are on detour due to Dallas Police activity near Victory Park. Outbound 49 right on McKinney, left on Field, left on Caroline, left on Payne, right on Houston to regular route. 52/59 same as 49 then left on All Star Way, left on Victory, back to Lamar for regular route. The route detour is reversed for inbound trips. Our apologies for the inconvenience.
http://dart.org/rideralerts/fullra.asp?id=2072
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Innocent bystanders will pay the price.
The gun lobby will reap the reward.
TexasTowelie
(112,102 posts)It appears that the suspect is on the 4th floor of the apartment building.
TexasTowelie
(112,102 posts)and an all's clear has been given.
Some laborers doing construction work nearby were already dismissed for the day.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)I take it there were no injuries?
TexasTowelie
(112,102 posts)Thank goodness the situation was resolved without any apparent injuries to the innocent people in the area.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)
FloriTexan
(838 posts)False alarm? I work in the Arts District by the Museum and they sure took this seriously.
struggle4progress
(118,275 posts)by MARJORIE OWENS
WFAA
Posted on March 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM
Updated today at 4:46 PM
... "There are certain incidents where it's not as much criminal as being a danger to yourself and others," Walton said ...
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Police-at-scene-in-Victory-Park-where-active-shooter-reported-252256841.html
I think that means "might be a psychiatric case"
