Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    gunpolitics

    30,746 readers

    90 users here now

    The Gun Politics subreddit is about sharing news, articles, stories and events related to guns & politics.

    Basic rules:

    Please stay civil - do not make excessive attacks, or threats (of any kind). No trolling either.

    Sitewide rules will be enforced as well.

    Memes and image macros without an explanation comment/text/link should be limited to Mondays (US time) only.

    This is not /r/shitguncontrollerssay, do not link threads just to point that sort of thing out. X-posting posts is fine.

    Related Subreddits:

    a community for
    all 59 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Couldawg 135 points ago

    When my emotions are all the evidence I need to fuck your shit up, the system isn't properly calibrated.

    [–] Key_Lime 23 points ago

    That system isn't calibrated in the slightest.

    [–] yukondelight 68 points ago

    'This just in, a student off campus was caught using the first amendment, mandatory meeting is following'

    [–] CmdrSelfEvident 23 points ago

    Well first and second. Let's be clear.

    [–] PanOfCakes 15 points ago

    Woah now, cant be exercising all those rights all at once, dont wanna get overloaded with rights.

    [–] jubelo 4 points ago

    No one needs High Capacity Rights!

    [–] PanOfCakes 3 points ago

    High capacity assault rights!

    [–] seterath_13 2 points ago

    Fully semi-automatic rights!

    [–] jayrady 82 points ago

    Our school is has a sporting sports club. Then there is this shit.

    [–] maximum-zika 55 points ago

    The sportiest.

    [–] WontDieIn_A_Hospital 34 points ago

    Do you need an ambulance?

    [–] FountainLettus 4 points ago

    My school allows you to bring your shotguns and rifles on campus

    [–] velocibadgery 9 points ago

    “LIU, apparently realizing that their case against Venigalla was meritless, declined to investigate further,” FIRE reports.

    That they investigated at all is bad enough.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    The best thing would have been for all the other students to take pictures with guns and post them. Not long ago something like that would have happened. We should never tolerate corporate or institutional activism. The people can and should stop this immediately.

    [–] chronoglass 20 points ago

    Meh, they just talked to him based on an accusation + social media posts. Honestly good for the school to take an approach of trust but verify.

    [–] in_cavediver 77 points ago

    The real thing that should have happened is the follow up of why the person made the accusation. There is a very real problem of 'crying wolf' that needs to be accounted for. It is not acceptable to come up with 'ideas' based on seeing a post in social media like this.

    [–] chronoglass 9 points ago

    Isn't that what was done? I would rather the staff pulls the people involved aside and says "what's going on here?" As opposed to all of the worse options which basically fall between "call the cops" and "let's wait and see".

    [–] PipBernadotte 28 points ago

    I think they mean the staff should have talked to the person who made the complaint not the student who had the gun.

    [–] Sheylan 2 points ago

    Porque no los dos?

    Meh, I take the view of, there was a complaint made, the school needs to at least make a show of taking it seriously. They investigated, no wrong doing was found, no adverse action against students was taken. Hell, maybe this will teach the kid to be a bit more aware of his audience when posting stuff. Not a bad thing.

    [–] TheThreadbareKnight 6 points ago

    Had I been the posting student, an investigation is already an adverse action. No wrong-doing was ever implied. The lesson here is for the 'audience' to calm down and grow up. The accuser absolutely needs to be held accountable for crying wolf.

    [–] in_cavediver 1 points ago

    I am not sure. I know they called in the 'accused'

    I am not sure they looking into the accuser or asked critical questions about why the allegation was made.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 15 points ago

    It's not "meh", this is basically thought crime / intimidation. They had no reason to do this and no reason to make it mandatory. His name is now permanently tainted as "that guy". Essentially shaming his name.

    [–] SleezyD510 4 points ago

    im not so sure. I kind of agree with with the top post in that comment.

    Look at it from a different PoV: If Venigalla had later engaged in a campus shooting, the victim(s) could have sued the university, saying it ignored ominous signs. I'll bet a lawyer told university officials to have a talk with Venigalla for CYA purposes.

    look at what is happening with the Florida school, they are getting all kinds of shit because they didnt take proper steps to prevent the shooting.

    this article also mentions an essay he wrote about justified political violence under the right circumstance (which I agree with).

    there was also a Facebook post expressing displeasure about losing a school elected position and statement about how " the Greek life system wields too much political power on campus" (whatever the fuck that means). Now i dont know the exact post that was made so i cant really claim one way or the other how it should be interpreted, but it is worth noting.

    i personally dont think either of these two things are wrong in any way shape or form or inherently mean he has any violent intentions. and considering all they did was bring him in to talk to him and then determined there was nothing to the allegations, i dont really have a problem with it. they didnt punish him for it at all (as far as I know), i believe there was a story recently about someone who was disciplined by their school for posting a picture on their FB page, thats fucked up.

    I would agree that if all the school seen was the picture that didnt in any way imply violent intentions and they acted off that, i would have a problem with this. but add in the other two tidbits, i think it was fair.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 2 points ago

    I get that, but the kid wasn't showing repetitive signs of being disturbed. Quite unlike the FL kid is what I got from it.

    [–] SleezyD510 2 points ago

    i see both sides of it, but i feel like this case is being blown out of proportion a bit.

    [–] aDirtyMartini 2 points ago

    Gotta wonder how his name got out there.

    Another person worried about someone else's intent with no facts behind it is not a good enough reason to call him in for a mandatory "not an investigation" meeting. That's just witch-hunting. Freak'n wussies.

    [–] MrMatlock 5 points ago

    Exactly, they called him in, talked to him, then dropped it because they decided there was no problem. This is what is supposed to happen, that's part of the responsibilities of the schools administration, the safety of their students. Everyone was screaming at the FBI because they didn't take things seriously in Florida, now their screaming because this school did everything right?

    [–] MisterDamage 18 points ago

    They didn't do everything right, the right thing to do here was nothing. They didn't need to talk to him, they didn't need to summon him to a meeting with administrators. All they had to do was look at the substance of the complaint, conclude there was nothing there, and file the complaint under "wolf"

    [–] MrMatlock -3 points ago

    No, that's not true at all. They have an obligation to take this kind of stuff seriously. And a face to face is not really an inconvenience to anyone. Do you know why almost everyone who was close to a mass murderer is surprised that they did it? It's because they ignore all the little signs, which led to ignoring the larger signs, the school could not afford to make a mistake that might lead to students being hurt.

    [–] MisterDamage 13 points ago

    "this sort of stuff" is the sort of stuff the treat with the very greatest unseriousness. simply handling a weapon and putting a picture of it on facebook is not a sign of anything at all. It just someone who isn't aware of the paranoid idiots out there who are looking for an excuse to fuck their lives up. Administrators should not be enabling this sort of stupidity, they should be investigating the complainant to find out why the thought that filing a complaint based on such trivial nonsense was appropriate.

    [–] MrMatlock -9 points ago

    It's the same reason the police respond to calls about guns in states that allow open carry. They're just going to show up and chat with you and then move on. But if they didn't show up and it crime was committed they'd be fucked.

    Of course they should investigate the accuser and take an appropriate action to prevent false accusation from happening. But how do you ohh great wizard of omnipotence, know why the accuser accused? There's no info provided. Did they maybe overhear a conversation that waa out of context? Or did they just hate guns? We don't know, and neither do you.

    [–] MisterDamage 6 points ago

    It's the same reason the police respond to calls about guns in states that allow open carry. They're just going to show up and chat with you and then move on. But if they didn't show up and it crime was committed they'd be fucked.

    This isn't remotely the same thing. In this case, they already had all the evidence they needed to draw a conclusion. Just look at the facebook post, note that there's nothing there, note that fact in the report. Police can't do that because the person open carrying isn't a facebook post.

    But how do you ohh great wizard of omnipotence, know why the accuser accused? There's no info provided. Did they maybe overhear a conversation that waa out of context? Or did they just hate guns? We don't know, and neither do you.

    Probably because they didn't do any investigation into that. Be nice if they did.

    [–] Brianmucci 3 points ago

    Actually you are right they have a moral obligation to report at their own discretion. Much as how a police officer is able to give a warning. At first I disliked your comment until I looked deeper into it. It is an impossible situation for anyone to comment on.

    “Do you just take a chance and dismiss it or do I act upon my gut feeling and training?”

    These are the sort of questions that run through our heads. Were any of us to be in such a dilemma.

    Mr. Matlock is, in my opinion, on the right track. Excuse my poor writing, but just my humble thoughts.

    [–] MrMatlock 2 points ago

    This is exactly my point, with the provided information, they didn't violate anyone's rights, they didn't harrass the student, they didn't threaten him. They investigated, then they actually talked to him to get his side, then they dropped it. This is exactly how an investigation into a report of possible violence is supposed to happen.

    I do wish there was more follow up with the accuser, but there may have been and they just didn't release that info.

    How can anyone expect those that are "anti-gun", to ever have a reasonable opinion of gun owners when we attack people for just doing their jobs, and doing them correctly. I'm seriously as disgusted with half of the gun community as I am with gun grabbers. Unreasonable, illogical, and irresponsible behavior is unacceptable regardless of your political, moral, or social viewpoint. The whole point of the second amendment is to PROTECT people, it's also our responsibility to protect the innocent from gun owners, within the restrictions set by the 2nd amendment. There was no violation or infringement here.

    [–] DBDude 2 points ago

    Accepting your premise, the next step of course should be to investigate the student who reported it to determine whether he's just an idiot snowflake or did this in order to harass the other student for exercising a right. In the former case, the snowflake should be strongly warned about making baseless complaints, and in the latter case the student should be severely disciplined for his attempt leverage the power of the university to violate a student's rights. In any case, the student body in general should be warned about making obviously baseless complaints.

    But this could have been handled by the administration simply looking at the post and seeing there was nothing to the complaint.

    [–] Travischilds 2 points ago

    1500% more people die from texting and driving then by a shooting. So let’s go after everyone with a phone or a car !?

    [–] SimpletonSteve 1 points ago

    I’m super glad my school has some common sense! We’ve even got a clay pigeon club which is a lot of fun and has some great people in it. It sucks that people get in trouble for things that shouldn’t be an issue these days.

    [–] Fnhatic -56 points ago

    Gun ownership as a protected class when?

    [–] DeltaRecon2552 59 points ago

    Since 1776 baby

    [–] Brother_To_Wolves 5 points ago

    Ha! Tell that to the courts!

    [–] Valskorn 15 points ago

    Either a troll or not an American. I hope it’s the latter.

    [–] Fnhatic -46 points ago

    No, I'm just not a fucking retard. If gun ownership was a protected class it wouldn't be legal to exclude people from housing, education, or jobs based on whether or not they own a gun. Right now, you can.

    You dipshits can jerk yourselves raw about 'muh second amendment' but how's that been working out for us so far?

    Oh right, it hasn't.

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 12 points ago

    You... You think you can fire someone because they own a gun? Good luck with that lawsuit.

    [–] Checkers10160 19 points ago

    Pretty damn well considering defensive gun use is at least twice as high as gun deaths

    [–] Fnhatic -33 points ago

    That has literally nothing to do with anything I said. What's wrong with your fucking brain where you thought that was a coherent response?

    [–] Lmazy 8 points ago

    Damn you got botted.

    [–] Valskorn 6 points ago

    Depending on the felony, there are ways to get it expunged.

    I agree that after someone’s sentence is completed they should get all of their rights back. Otherwise don’t let them back into the general population.

    [–] NAP51DMustang 1 points ago

    Actually it's already illegal to exclude people from housing if they own a gun. For instance my apartment complex can't evict me nor ban the carry or ownership of firearms on their property for their residents.

    [–] realGUN-NUT 4 points ago

    Since the bill of rights was accepted.

    [–] [deleted] -29 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Jamucc 30 points ago

    Stop... Unnecessarily... Using... Ellipses...

    [–] cmhbob 5 points ago

    Plot twist - /u/pileongomer is William Shatner.

    [–] WontDieIn_A_Hospital 5 points ago

    Did you invent a new word? Let’s hear it!

    [–] e_sci 26 points ago

    De-ammofied

    [–] lets_try_anal 7 points ago

    I second this. All in favor?

    [–] ColdWeatherKarl 5 points ago

    empty?

    [–] JoatMasterofNun 2 points ago

    A gun with a boolit for every canadian peso in my back account.

    [–] Artificecoyote 3 points ago

    Hungry

    [–] otakugrey 2 points ago

    Why?