The Thing About Guns . . .

There are laws and protocols for alcoholism that are nonexistent for guns.

Tell me about these laws and protocols for alcoholism (what ever that means) that are nonexistent for guns.

I'd really like to hear that argument if you think you can put one together.

Your assumption is very flawed. You do not compare alcohol to guns, period.
Almost every adult drinks a glass of alcohol whatever their preference is, even the ones who abuse alcohol rarely harm others, DUI excluded. We don't really talk about guns either, we talk about military weapons that are readily available to a very young population that is most often troubled and mentally unstable. No one is held accountable when these AR military style weapons are sold like candy.

We've had 604 mass shootings in 2021 in the US - anyone trying to make sense of this and thinking that it is acceptable or worse - is making excuses for such abnormality of society, is delusional and part of the problem.

You seem upset that a multiple murder is called mass shooting - who gives a **** what it is called, don't you see the real problem here? No gun control is not working for us, that's the real issue and as long as the government, its lobbyists and people like you think it's no big deal, there will be more mass shootings, senseless killings of mostly young people who had their lives ahead of themselves.

Your excuse of being pro gun is despicable!

Yeah, and the vast majority of gun owners rarely harm others. You must have a better point than that.

Anyway, how do you define harm? Doesn't matter. Saying that alcohol abuse rarely results in harm is really a despicable thing to say. It's a slap in the face of everyone who suffered, and continues to suffer, all kinds of abuse at the hands of an alcohol abuser. I'm sure they'll appreciate your clueless optimism.

Just like some gun owners harm and kill others, some drinkers harm and kill others, both accidentally and deliberately . . . with guns. And alcohol is involved in soooooo many of those shootings. Since you obviously have no intention of putting any effort into researching before pounding the keys, I did it for you.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/21814/Alcohol-Firearms.pdf

- There is an age limit for drinking alcohol (21 in the US). Providing alcohol to people under 21 is illegal. Businesses can be fined, individuals can be arrested. (For long guns, which includes rifles like AR-15s and shotguns, the minimum age of purchase from a licensed dealer is 18 under the federal law. But there’s no minimum age to purchase a long gun from a unlicensed seller. )
- Businesses that sell alcohol must be licensed.
- Providing alcohol to someone who is clearly intoxicated confers legal liability for their actions.
- Being under the influence of alcohol is prohibited on federal property.
- In some states alcohol is controlled by the state through ABC stores (not universal).
- In some counties, alcohol sales are forbidden.
- The sale of alcohol is heavily taxed.

Other interesting alcohol laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States

And despite all of those rules and laws, and despite the fact that it's not designed to cause death and colateral damage, it does so at a greater rate than guns. So, why not go after the bigger problem? Does alcohol hold a special place in everyone's heart that puts it above the lives lost?

Oh, but first, can we establish whether or not you're one of those "get rid of them all" people or not. And if you're not one of those people, are you nevertheless apt to go after the next gun the media points you toward when there's mysteriously still deaths from guns? Do you have a particular number in mind when it comes to the number of deaths from guns you're willing to accept as a cutoff point for your going after guns?

Not sure if that would make a difference to my arguments, but I'm one of those "we should have reasonable restrictions around guns like we did in the 70's and 80's type of people.

I'm not against regulations. I'm also not against insisting that the FBI respond to threats against school kids by not turning their back on information that a kid has clearly stated that he intends to be the next school shooter. That's a must.

FBI School Shooter Threat Assessment tool

Looking at the threat assesment tool, and the manpower and budget that would have to be allocated to police it properly - they are probably overwhelmed, and have to triage the volume of threat tips they receive.

Admittedly I haven't tried to find the manpower & budget allocated to it.

I don't think the FBI is responsible for school shootings. That would be local police unless it was connected to terrorism or kidnapping.

They certainly could have stopped Nikolas Cruz, but failed miserably. So, for that one, they are responsible.

Not in the Nikolas Cruz case. The FBI dropped the ball and they know it.

To be clear - they aren't responsible for the school shooting (that can only ever lay with the shooter). I presume you mean 'they are responsible for not doing more to stop the shooting'

I'm also not sure that missed gunmen (whom they received tips for) doesn't actually prove my supposition of them being overwhelmed. When people are overwhelmed, things get missed / lost in the pile.

You should do at least a little research before claiming "to be clear."

Here is the whole story concerning the person who knew Cruz and called the FBI:

Not only did the January caller to the FBI warn about violent behavior, but she said she was specifically concerned about Cruz shooting students at his former school.

"He's [been] thrown out [of] all these schools because he would pick up a chair and just throw it at somebody, a teacher or a student because he didn't like the way they were talking to him," she said. "I just think about you know, [him] getting into a school and just shooting the place up."

Her main concern, according to the transcript, were pictures and threats Cruz posted on multiple Instagram accounts, including weapons and dead animals that he would cut open.

"If you go into his Instagram pages, you'll see all the guns," she said. "On the Instagram he said, 'I want to kill people.'"

The caller referred to Cruz as being confused, sometimes dressing up "like a ninja or a-a-a- ISIS guy."

"Tell you how confused he is, he's got the Make America Great Again hat on," she said about one of his Instagram posts. "And his face is all covered with a scarf."

She also alleged that he was using money from his deceased adopted mother's account to buy ammunition and weapons.

"He took the money out, the social security money out, and he took it and he bought all these rifles and ammunition and he posted pictures of them on the Instragram," the caller said, adding that Cruz was expected to receive money after his adopted mother's death. "The main concern is also when he gets his $25,000, he's not going to give it to this man to invest. He's going to buy guns."

The unidentified woman added she had called local police in the past, and that she felt she needed to contact someone about Cruz and his social media posts.

"I didn't know whether to call you or Homeland Security or who, but like, like I said, um, when you look into this, you can make the decision as to whether you want to go further or not," she said, according to the transcript. "I just want to, you know, get it off my chest in case something does happen and I do believe something's going to happen."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Now, do you really believe that after this woman called and tipped off the FBI about Nikolas Cruz, they didn't know where she was from or who she was talking about?

I don't need to do more research before claiming 'to be clear', as this comment related to the difference between blame (which is subjective) and personal responsibility (which is objective), and the difference between Personal Responsibility and Contributing Factors. Those differences are clear, and stay the same no matter the event:

PART A: The only person responsible for an individual's actions is the individual themself.

No one can control their brain. No one else makes a choice for them (coercion is different). No one else can control their muscles as they carry out the actions. They are solely responsible for such things. That means they are solely responsible for their decision to shoot up a school.

+

PART B: Decisions are not made in a vacuum. Outside of a persons individual responsibility for their own decision, there a contributing factors.

Generally, if you are problem solving in the hope of stopping another person from doing the same thing - this is the area you look at to problem solve in. Contributing circumstances don't absolve personal responsibility - they make the decision more understandable / predictable.

&

PART C: Before an action can happen (like in this case), people sometimes have a chance to stop it from happening.

------------------------------

The FBI is one of a number of people/entities responsible for not enacting PART C of this chain (which aren't part of the offenders decision making process). Responsibility for the decision to become a shooter is still found in PART A - the shooter themself

I could tell you that the FBI has admitted to not following protocol and that they had dropped the ball in that case, and you'd still make excuses for them. Am I right?

It's not excuses as I clearly stated they failed in their obligations.

I also said they weren't responsible for the shooting themselves. That responsibility <just as the responsibility for all actions does> always rests with the doer.

They failed to stop a kid who was a walking red flag. That's their job, so yeah, they share the blame alright. Wonder if anyone was fired over that.