More info in the investigation.

The first time the Cops had contact with the shooter was when it was reported he'd told people he was going to commit suicide.

The second interaction was when he threatened to kill his family. Cops confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a sword, which were all returned after the father claimed they belonged to him.  The father also promised to have the son see a mental health professional.

The shooter was never charged with any crime even with the previous behaviors.  When he wanted to buy guns, the father sponsored him to get a Firearm Owner ID, required by the state to buy a gun.  Since he was under 21, the law required an adult sponsor him to have his FOID approved.

So, to me, this boils down to what's really a problem with red flag laws.  The lawmakers (and the red flag proponents) believe the family is in the best position to observe and report the behavior of their family members.  The problem is, most family members are hardwired to protect their family.  So, it's less likely a family member will call the cops to report a son, daughter, or sibling.

The father in this case knew about all the problems his son was having, and about all the threats.  Yet, he still enabled that behavior by keeping him out of jail and helping him buy guns.

Hindsight is 20/20.  I bet there are thousands of other families just like this who think they are helping their family member by protecting them from the system lawmakers put in place to weed out the violent ones undeserving of the right to keep and bear arms.

So, what's the solution to these observers who don't want to red flag their own kin?  These red flag laws are destined to fail at stopping violence, but they have, and they will, succeed at getting innocent people killed when the Cops show up to take their guns.

More info in the investigation.

The first time the Cops had contact with the shooter was when it was reported he'd told people he was going to commit suicide.

The second interaction was when he threatened to kill his family. Cops confiscated 16 knives, a dagger and a sword, which were all returned after the father claimed they belonged to him.  The father also promised to have the son see a mental health professional.

The shooter was never charged with any crime even with the previous behaviors.  When he wanted to buy guns, the father sponsored him to get a Firearm Owner ID, required by the state to buy a gun.  Since he was under 21, the law required an adult sponsor him to have his FOID approved.

So, to me, this boils down to what's really a problem with red flag laws.  The lawmakers (and the red flag proponents) believe the family is in the best position to observe and report the behavior of their family members.  The problem is, most family members are hardwired to protect their family.  So, it's less likely a family member will call the cops to report a son, daughter, or sibling.

The father in this case knew about all the problems his son was having, and about all the threats.  Yet, he still enabled that behavior by keeping him out of jail and helping him buy guns.

Hindsight is 20/20.  I bet there are thousands of other families just like this who think they are helping their family member by protecting them from the system lawmakers put in place to weed out the violent ones undeserving of the right to keep and bear arms.

So, what's the solution to these observers who don't want to red flag their own kin?  These red flag laws are destined to fail at stopping violence, but they have, and they will, succeed at getting innocent people killed when the Cops show up to take their guns.

Is there a time frame of when his dad sponsored him?  If we do reverse math, he is 22 today. So in 2019 he was 19; which is when the cops showed up. But if he got the gun when he was 20, an entire year could have gone by and at that time he was "normal". Then 2 years went by and he did not commit any other crimes. So either way, gun laws don't work as well as the left promotes them to.

Is there a time frame of when his dad sponsored him?  If we do reverse math, he is 22 today. So in 2019 he was 19; which is when the cops showed up. But if he got the gun when he was 20, an entire year could have gone by and at that time he was "normal". Then 2 years went by and he did not commit any other crimes. So either way, gun laws don't work as well as the left promotes them to.

“The subject was under 21 and the application was sponsored by the subject’s father,” Illinois State Police said.
“Therefore, at the time of FOID application review in January of 2020, there was insufficient basis to establish
a clear and present danger and deny the FOID application.”

So, that answers the timeline questions. 

4/2019 - The Intent to commit suicide was reported.

8/2019 - The "kill the family" threat was reported.

1/2020 - The father sponsored his FOID application.

Thus, two reports of intended harm to self or others in 2019, and his father signed the FOID form in January 2020.

So, not years, but about 4-5 months between threats of violence and getting a firearm FOID.

Plus, the "stoner" label friends gave him needs to be factored into the father's judgement as to his fitness to possess weapons, not to mention it makes him prohibited by federal statute.

Seems like a fractured society is the main cause for mass shootings.  Not guns.  Society and family life has deteriorated.  Social Media plays a big role too in my opinion.  Not in mass shootings but in the deterioration of society as a whole.

Also seems like we need to amend current laws about medical privacy and minors.  There has to be a way to cull out the dangerous nut jobs like these mass shooters from amongst the mentally ill.  Their medical records cannot and should not be wiped out after reaching adult age just because they were a minor when they were under medical mental care. 

If the above can somehow be implemented, then the FOID application sponsored by the scumbag's father would have been denied. 

I may be cruel but I hope the father and mother gets held accountable also.  Too many innocent lives were taken that day and altered the lives of so many forever.

Seems like a fractured society is the main cause for mass shootings.  Not guns.  Society and family life has deteriorated.  Social Media plays a big role too in my opinion.  Not in mass shootings but in the deterioration of society as a whole.

Also seems like we need to amend current laws about medical privacy and minors.  There has to be a way to cull out the dangerous nut jobs like these mass shooters from amongst the mentally ill.  Their medical records cannot and should not be wiped out after reaching adult age just because they were a minor when they were under medical mental care. 

If the above can somehow be implemented, then the FOID application sponsored by the scumbag's father would have been denied. 

I may be cruel but I hope the father and mother gets held accountable also.  Too many innocent lives were taken that day and altered the lives of so many forever.

People are referred to mental/behavioral healthcare for a variety of reasons.  Not all are violent or express thoughts of violence.  Since the rate of violence caused by diagnosed (key word) mentally ill is almost identical to the rate of violence among the "normal population" (undiagnosed?), I submit taking the rights from everyone in that group is statistically unsupported and ineffective. 

The numbers tell us there's something other than mental illness alone causing these people to commit acts of violence.  Were they left undiagnosed?  Untreated?  Ignored? Did their parents enable bad behavior by shielding them from consequences?

If we have 100K mentally ill people in Hawaii, and we identify 80K because they sought help, were referred by parents, spouses, courts, doctors, etc, that leaves 20K, or 20%, left to their own devices.  Do they self medicate?  Do video games, movies and Social Media feed some dark, violent fantasies they have?  Are they unable to distinguish fantasy from reality?  You see where I'm going ...

Is it the mental illness that causes violence, or does the mental illness make one more susceptible to other factors which turn them into killers?  Given the stats, not all mentally ill are threats.

Just a thought.

So no assault weapons used. Bye bye anti 2a talking point. Ive seen mutiple comments about banning the ar15 on yahoo comments.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So no assault weapons used. Bye bye anti 2a talking point. Ive seen mutiple comments about banning the ar15 on yahoo comments.

Not going to contradict you, since "Assault Weapon" is not an industry term.  It's a political category that California created in order to lump any scary-looking rifle into a single catch-all suitable for banning.

But, there's this, too:

The state police approved Crimo III’s request for a firearm owner’s identification card in January 2020.

The next month, he bought the Smith & Wesson M&P15 semiautomatic rifle authorities say he used in
the Independence Day mass shooting, Brandon Kelly, director of the Illinois State Police, said Wednesday.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/6/23197100/highland-park-mass-shooting-gun-mith-wesson-mp15-semiautomatic-rifle-fourth-july-parade-robert-crimo

I think I saw the "high powered rifle" in the Yahoo report you referred to:

https://news.yahoo.com/police-share-photo-highland-park-050132706.html

Apparently that picture is of a gun found in the shooter's vehicle when they arrested him. 

The Highland Park weapon was recovered along the parade route -- an AR-15 pattern rifle.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/highland-park-parade-shooting-investigators-release-photo-of-gun-found-in-robert-crimos-vehicle

Not going to contradict you, since "Assault Weapon" is not an industry term.  It's a political category that California created in order to lump any scary-looking rifle into a single catch-all suitable for banning.

But, there's this, too:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/6/23197100/highland-park-mass-shooting-gun-mith-wesson-mp15-semiautomatic-rifle-fourth-july-parade-robert-crimo

I think I saw the "high powered rifle" in the Yahoo report you referred to:

https://news.yahoo.com/police-share-photo-highland-park-050132706.html

Apparently that picture is of a gun found in the shooter's vehicle when they arrested him. 

The Highland Park weapon was recovered along the parade route -- an AR-15 pattern rifle.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/highland-park-parade-shooting-investigators-release-photo-of-gun-found-in-robert-crimos-vehicle

Not going to contradict you, since "Assault Weapon" is not an industry term.  It's a political category that California created in order to lump any scary-looking rifle into a single catch-all suitable for banning.

But, there's this, too:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/6/23197100/highland-park-mass-shooting-gun-mith-wesson-mp15-semiautomatic-rifle-fourth-july-parade-robert-crimo

I think I saw the "high powered rifle" in the Yahoo report you referred to:

https://news.yahoo.com/police-share-photo-highland-park-050132706.html

Apparently that picture is of a gun found in the shooter's vehicle when they arrested him. 

The Highland Park weapon was recovered along the parade route -- an AR-15 pattern rifle.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/highland-park-parade-shooting-investigators-release-photo-of-gun-found-in-robert-crimos-vehicle

U know that i know the made up term.

Idk why they call it "ar15 style".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/07/highland-park-shooter-kel-tec-sub-2000-rifle/#axzz7YJiFdTH8

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

don't matter what tool he used. That boy was sick and evil.

Law enforcement knew about him.  I'm getting kinda sick of hearing the same old shit about these f**kn low life losers.  All of them were known to law enforcement.

I don't have all the answers but instead of spending tons of resources and money in banning firearms to law-abiding citizens how about we spend those resources in nipping it in the bud with LE having knowledge of these bastards.

Start there.  But the anti-gun nuts won't.  Because it's not about public safety.  They only say it is.

It is a disturbing fact that often these people are known to law enforcement but the problem is often that there was not enough information to justify locking these people up or forcibly taking them to see a psychologist. The more I look at this the more it is clear that banning firearm types in general really isn't the answer rather banning specific people from owning firearms is where the focus needs to be. As with any other time the government is going to suspend or restrict citizens rights it should be done on a case by case basis, not blanket actions that affect everyone.  The thing about this though is that this aspect is what red flag type laws are trying to address. Though somewhat imperfect a solution they seem to be one of the few gun violence solutions which could address the problem that cops knew of people like this but couldn't do anything.

Sometimes it was a failure to share information as well though and that is no excuse, that is even worse.

Idk why they call it "ar15 style".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Because that is probably the best description for the average reader to understand.

It is a disturbing fact that often these people are known to law enforcement but the problem is often that there was not enough information to justify locking these people up or forcibly taking them to see a psychologist. The more I look at this the more it is clear that banning firearm types in general really isn't the answer rather banning specific people from owning firearms is where the focus needs to be. As with any other time the government is going to suspend or restrict citizens rights it should be done on a case by case basis, not blanket actions that affect everyone.  The thing about this though is that this aspect is what red flag type laws are trying to address. Though somewhat imperfect a solution they seem to be one of the few gun violence solutions which could address the problem that cops knew of people like this but couldn't do anything.

Sometimes it was a failure to share information as well though and that is no excuse, that is even worse.

The problem is we hope those who make the decision on the case by case doesnt have an agenda. And as we have learned, it doesnt work out.

Maybe what we need is to bring back our respectful culture. Like 1960s and prior family stlye. Many things have torn this apart.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

When I got bit by a dog my grandfather scolded me that I didn't bite the dog back. Problem with modern society is that we let cowards like this prevail in a fight.

I wonder if Social Workers can be part of the solution.  Every so often they can do a "wellness" check on those patients under mental health care.

They might be able to help out in the "red flag" process.  Frees up LE and ensures follow up checks.

Maybe that is all that it takes.  Someone with a willing ear to listen and a person to talk to.  It would probably take additional training for the social workers and maybe more of them will be needed.

Seems like social workers currently are far and few in between.  And grossly underpaid and overworked.

I wonder if Social Workers can be part of the solution.  Every so often they can do a "wellness" check on those patients under mental health care.

They might be able to help out in the "red flag" process.  Frees up LE and ensures follow up checks.

Maybe that is all that it takes.  Someone with a willing ear to listen and a person to talk to.  It would probably take additional training for the social workers and maybe more of them will be needed.

Seems like social workers currently are far and few in between.  And grossly underpaid and overworked.

I like this idea. Cops are often this ear to listen to people but the nature of their job and position makes it difficult since the person is often going to be guarded when talking to a cop.

This type of idea has been one floated under the "defund the police" rally cry and is one I think might actually have some credibility to it.

The problem is we hope those who make the decision on the case by case doesnt have an agenda. And as we have learned, it doesnt work out.

Maybe what we need is to bring back our respectful culture. Like 1960s and prior family stlye. Many things have torn this apart.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

This is true, anytime we give some people power over others we need to make sure they are trusted and that they don't abuse the power.

I wasn't alive in the 1960s so I don't know how polite the 1960s were compared to today but I think black people might dispute how polite the 1960s were.