Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

we could have a thread on inner city violence and it would go 1 or 2 pages

seems nobody cares about day to day murders much - they really only care about something they see on CNN and then and only then do they knee jerk/freak out/demand actions now !!!

:(

 

so start a thread.  :shrug:

completely different solutions to stopping inner city violence vs stopping school/mall shootings.  

probably why it's not discussed a ton.  you know - not because people don't care about it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

so start a thread.  :shrug:

completely different solutions to stopping inner city violence vs stopping school/mall shootings.  

probably why it's not discussed a ton.  you know - not because people don't care about it.  

What's with SC pointing out Muslim names involved in shootings?  

Inner city shootings--handguns--can't make laws to restrict them.  Heller.  Miller.   We've discussed it in this thread and the other dozens of times.  Just SC spinning the wheel o' lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, -fish- said:

What's with SC pointing out Muslim names involved in shootings?  

Inner city shootings--handguns--can't make laws to restrict them.  Heller.  Miller.   We've discussed it in this thread and the other dozens of times.  Just SC spinning the wheel o' lies.

I'm aware it's part of the go-around.  Mostly from a group of people it's systemic problems don't exist, bootstraps, and also you can't touch the guns.  would be curious what their actual solutions are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Not to vote, nor to reasonably obtain the identification needed to vote.  Not sure if what they do have would allow buying a firearm, or impose the same kind of restrictions.  

well if they spent the time to get some identifications, they can spend a bit of time getting one more too - my point is, its not a time issue at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I'm aware it's part of the go-around.  Mostly from a group of people it's systemic problems don't exist, bootstraps, and also you can't touch the guns.  would be curious what their actual solutions are.  

Verse 1....

I'm willing to have a discussion as long as that discussion involves not touching my guns and agreeing with my premises that guns aren't a problem.  

Verse 2

"Also we already have common sense gun laws"

"well common sense is a perspective"

"NO, its common sense NOW"

"That's not how perspective works"

"We have common sense gun laws now"

"have a good night"

Repeat verse's 1 and 2 until the end of time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, -fish- said:

What's with SC pointing out Muslim names involved in shootings?  

its like when people point out when a white person mass kills - its a way that we can see patterns and traits and see where the area's that need to be focused on when it comes to preventing violence

like - if we're looking for a serial killer, a young white woman with an Amish background isn't a likely candidate right? a mid 40's white male, divorced, socially inept ... that's a better focus because history/fact/information shows us a likelyhood

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

well if they spent the time to get some identifications, they can spend a bit of time getting one more too - my point is, its not a time issue at all

Why do you think asserting points that have already been demonstrated to be false is going to be convincing?  And while still a terribly erroneous point it cost more than time for a significant few.  

And why do you trivialize and  find it acceptable that this burden be placed on this set of law abiding citizens such that cannot easily go purchase a firearm?   Why must good law abiding people have their rights denied just because there are those that out of nothing but fear took away their rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, -fish- said:

What's with SC pointing out Muslim names involved in shootings?  

Inner city shootings--handguns--can't make laws to restrict them.  Heller.  Miller.   We've discussed it in this thread and the other dozens of times.  Just SC spinning the wheel o' lies.

In my county, if I want to buy a handgun I need a pistol permit. There's roughly a six month backlog in application processing, I have to provide three non-familial references and undergo a thorough background check. 

The above is a restriction on handgun ownership. Other counties in my state (Nassau, Queens) have even more restrictive provisions on the purchase of handguns. Why couldn't these restrictions on handguns be more widespread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Gawain said:

In my county, if I want to buy a handgun I need a pistol permit. There's roughly a six month backlog in application processing, I have to provide three non-familial references and undergo a thorough background check. 

The above is a restriction on handgun ownership. Other counties in my state (Nassau, Queens) have even more restrictive provisions on the purchase of handguns. Why couldn't these restrictions on handguns be more widespread?

Technically, it's not a restriction on handgun ownership.   It's a restriction on purchasing or transferring a firearm. 

Extended background checks and waiting periods could be enacted.  In fact, something like 90% of Americans and 85% of gun owners support them (even the NRA claims to support them while lobbying and filing lawsuits against them).    The members of the Senate who have sold out to the NRA refuse to vote for them.   

We can also pass laws requiring training, licensing and secure storage.  We can also pass laws prohibiting felons and persons who have been convicted of domestic violence or stalking from owning guns.   We can enact red flag laws.  With some exceptions and with allowances for transport, we can limit where guns can be possessed to your own home(s), gun ranges, private property and government land approved for hunting (with proper permits).  

We could repeal the law that prohibits law enforcement from using a searchable national database to track gun crimes.

But we don't, at least not on the federal level.  Mostly because of the NRA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -fish- said:

Technically, it's not a restriction on handgun ownership.   It's a restriction on purchasing or transferring a firearm. 

Extended background checks and waiting periods could be enacted.  In fact, something like 90% of Americans and 85% of gun owners support them (even the NRA claims to support them while lobbying and filing lawsuits against them).    The members of the Senate who have sold out to the NRA refuse to vote for them.   

We can also pass laws requiring training, licensing and secure storage.  We can also pass laws prohibiting felons and persons who have been convicted of domestic violence or stalking from owning guns.   We can enact red flag laws.  With some exceptions and with allowances for transport, we can limit where guns can be possessed to your own home(s), gun ranges, private property and government land approved for hunting (with proper permits).  

We could repeal the law that prohibits law enforcement from using a searchable national database to track gun crimes.

But we don't, at least not on the federal level.  Mostly because of the NRA.

And not one of those laws takes SC's kid's turkey gun, unless he's a felon, convicted domestic abuser or dangerously mentally disturbed.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dkp993 said:

"well common sense is a perspective"

this is true - so how does a person acquire "common sense" ?

I'm saying focusing on banning guns that account for 2% of all the weapons used in murder isn't common sense nor is focusing on a weapon vs focusing on the people doing the crimes. That's not common sense to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Why do you think asserting points that have already been demonstrated to be false is going to be convincing?  And while still a terribly erroneous point it cost more than time for a significant few.  

And why do you trivialize and  find it acceptable that this burden be placed on this set of law abiding citizens such that cannot easily go purchase a firearm?   Why must good law abiding people have their rights denied just because there are those that out of nothing but fear took away their rights?

if I'm a non-gun owner or an anti-gunner .... I would repeat the same things over and over and try to convince others my view is right because I feel unsafe in this country and I see the violence around me. I think I'd have liberal tendencies which would move me to not focus on why people are violent but rather pass more laws and hope something works. I'd bully people and tell them every life matters and try to play on their emotions when mass murders happen. I'd say just one more set of new laws is what we need, constantly promising that these new laws/restrictions will make everyone safer. I don't own guns as a non-gun owners or anti-gunner so I'm literally giving up nothing and that's very very easy to do.

I think that's the play of someone who is for more gun control vs more violence control. Stop the violence, and it doesn't matter much who has a gun or a knife or any other weapon and that truth will remain undiscussed won't it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, -fish- said:

And not one of those laws takes SC's kid's turkey gun

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-california/

A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip;

read that link - its educational on what an "assault" weapon is ............. its not a "weapon" at all, its a list of accessories attached to guns, and certain guns with certain characteristics ... which should be eye opening to people who simply do not understand that "assault" is an action, its not a brand or make

and when legislators that have no goals but banning write these laws, they take away a kids turkey hunting shotgun. I don't think I could legally go to CA with him turkey hunting with his gun ..... its an "assault" weapon lol .... and not allowing that is banning me/us from doing that

 

and again, -fish- is proven wrong

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

this is true - so how does a person acquire "common sense" ?

I'm saying focusing on banning guns that account for 2% of all the weapons used in murder isn't common sense nor is focusing on a weapon vs focusing on the people doing the crimes. That's not common sense to me

Again - BOTH.  

1.  I would love to focus on the people.   Problem is, it's a wide net and wide array of reasons we have for people committing these crimes.  You and others don't seem to provide many ideas here - who do we look at more?  Do they not have access to guns?  How do we address the different types of mass shootings - ie gang vs. school/mall shootings? (they are different). 

2.  Along with that and making it harder for people who do these things to get their hands on a weapon, I would also love it it we could tackle the weapons and try to limit the damage that they can do if it gets to this point.  (that's why the discussion goes to AKs, magazine size, etc.. )  

3.  Doing both of the above does not infringe on your rights to own a gun to protect your family.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

1.  I would love to focus on the people.   Problem is, it's a wide net and wide array of reasons we have for people committing these crimes.  You and others don't seem to provide many ideas here - who do we look at more?  Do they not have access to guns?  How do we address the different types of mass shootings - ie gang vs. school/mall shootings? (they are different). 

I think a wide net is trying to corral 80 million gun owners - why do you think it'd be easier to do that that focus on where crime is/exists?

I spent quite a bit of time last year researching the top 40 mass murderers and if I remember right I found that at least 3/4 of them were on mental health drugs. Violence breeds and spreads in inner cities, where drugs also breeds and spreads. Coincidence? you tell me. We address school/mall shootings with increased security - I figure if the money in your bank is important enough to have security around, so are our kids you know? and BTW its WORKING, far fewer incidents at schools !!  

5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

2.  Along with that and making it harder for people who do these things to get their hands on a weapon, I would also love it it we could tackle the weapons and try to limit the damage that they can do if it gets to this point.  (that's why the discussion goes to AKs, magazine size, etc.. )  

I'm telling you right now a person can do far more damage with a shotgun and handguns then they can with "AK's, magazine size, etc" ........... facts have been shown over and over that only 2% of murders happen with rifles.

C'mon .... can you acknowledge that please? If you can, then you're saying that 98% of the murders you're not really caring about and to that I'll say why not ?

because I'll acknowledge mass murderers can and do use rifles etc but then also use handguns, a lot. You'll not stop them KarmaPolice, they will find their ways to hurt mass people because they're unstable and/or evil. If we poofed away all AR15's today, tomorrow a mass murderer will use 6 handguns. poof those away, and they'll use a semi-auto shotgun. 

how many poofs do you want to see before saying hey, lets stop the mass murderers because the weapons are not the problem ?

 

9 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

3.  Doing both of the above does not infringe on your rights to own a gun to protect your family.  

infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

yes, when anti-gun laws says I can't have this and this, that and that .... that's limiting, encroaching ... ie infringing

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if I'm a non-gun owner or an anti-gunner .... I would repeat the same things over and over and try to convince others my view is right because I feel unsafe in this country and I see the violence around me. I think I'd have liberal tendencies which would move me to not focus on why people are violent but rather pass more laws and hope something works. I'd bully people and tell them every life matters and try to play on their emotions when mass murders happen. I'd say just one more set of new laws is what we need, constantly promising that these new laws/restrictions will make everyone safer. I don't own guns as a non-gun owners or anti-gunner so I'm literally giving up nothing and that's very very easy to do.

I think that's the play of someone who is for more gun control vs more violence control. Stop the violence, and it doesn't matter much who has a gun or a knife or any other weapon and that truth will remain undiscussed won't it ?

Do people buy more guns because they fear violent crime is increasing?  Or does violent crime increase because people are buying more guns?   Either way your point fails basic logic.  Either it is those buying guns as a reaction to those crimes that are scared.  Or those scared of increase violence resulting from increased sales are correct in their perceptions.  Whether they can come up with solutions is an open question, but your entire premise to project your posting behavior of repeating stuff well after it has been demonstrated false on the "other side" is flawed.   If your position is so great, why must you post nonsense constantly to support it?   Pivot to a new tangent when one argument collapses?  Hope that no one remembers when you work back around to the nonsense once again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

this is true - so how does a person acquire "common sense" ?

I'm saying focusing on banning guns that account for 2% of all the weapons used in murder isn't common sense nor is focusing on a weapon vs focusing on the people doing the crimes. That's not common sense to me

I agree that the most common sense method to lower gun violence is to end the war on drugs.  The second best method is to create means of escape for those in poor domestic situations.   But most people don't fear that they are in these subsets of people (even if like the family a few miles south of me yesterday really are).  They fear the more random acts the same way they fear [by definition] terrorists attacks. 

But yes we should end the war on drugs.  We should provide the safety nets (both money and emotional support) that would allow people to leave abusive situations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Do people buy more guns because they fear violent crime is increasing?  Or does violent crime increase because people are buying more guns?   Either way your point fails basic logic.  Either it is those buying guns as a reaction to those crimes that are scared.  Or those scared of increase violence resulting from increased sales are correct in their perceptions.  Whether they can come up with solutions is an open question, but your entire premise to project your posting behavior of repeating stuff well after it has been demonstrated false on the "other side" is flawed.   If your position is so great, why must you post nonsense constantly to support it?   Pivot to a new tangent when one argument collapses?  Hope that no one remembers when you work back around to the nonsense once again? 

Everyone has a different reason for buying guns. Some people buy more because they have a wide array of hunting/shooting interests. I bought a Buckmark the other day, never had a .22 pistol before. Some people buy to carry, some people only for in home use. Some people think the bans are coming and want one before they can't get one anymore. Rarely - and I mean 0.0001% of the time, do people buy intent on killing someone else

People who sit behind the batter in MLB without protective gear are they scared? YES! Catchers wearing their gear? NO, they're not scared of getting hit with a 98mph fastball are they?

its like that with people carrying and having guns in their homes for protections. We are not the scared ones.

I post the logic, reason, facts and pillars my position sits on. I am a life long gun owner, hunter, shooter ... I'm an NRA member and seeing all these responses that are so uninformed and the positions of people wanting to take away things from me ..... that's why I post.

Gun owners are not the problem, we never have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I think a wide net is trying to corral 80 million gun owners - why do you think it'd be easier to do that that focus on where crime is/exists?

I spent quite a bit of time last year researching the top 40 mass murderers and if I remember right I found that at least 3/4 of them were on mental health drugs. 

I'm telling you right now a person can do far more damage with a shotgun and handguns then they can with "AK's, magazine size, etc" ........... facts have been shown over and over that only 2% of murders happen with rifles.

C'mon .... can you acknowledge that please? If you can, then you're saying that 98% of the murders you're not really caring about and to that I'll say why not ?

 

infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

yes, when anti-gun laws says I can't have this and this, that and that .... that's limiting, encroaching ... ie infringing

 

 

1.  We went around about the mental health proposals you make and suggest.   Are you suggesting that people on mental health drugs should not have access to guns?   You realize that 1 - that is a lot of this country, and 2.  These people are law abiding citizens?

2.  We have acknowleged over and over the % of handguns used.  We have also discussed that we can't do anything about that, so we don't usually bring it up.   Hence why I suggest using regulations on guns + other factors, not just that.  

3.  I will give you that - nice catch.  I should have said that it does not take away your ability to protect your family.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I agree that the most common sense method to lower gun violence is to end the war on drugs.  The second best method is to create means of escape for those in poor domestic situations.   But most people don't fear that they are in these subsets of people (even if like the family a few miles south of me yesterday really are).  They fear the more random acts the same way they fear [by definition] terrorists attacks. 

But yes we should end the war on drugs.  We should provide the safety nets (both money and emotional support) that would allow people to leave abusive situations.

end the violence involved in drugs means shutting down illegal's drug trafficking, gangs, cartels .......... that's going to hit inner city people hard. You think the backlash on police is bad right now? But yes, I think that has to happen at some point. That people don't want to discuss it baffles me

"poor domestic situations" - again, I agree. Its very hard to make people want to do better - some people want basic income guarantee and just do nothing and let the Govt take care of them :(   I don't know how to tackle that really but with poverty and lack of education seems to also increased in violence

leaving abusive situations doesn't mean the abuser goes away - the abusers need stopped as well 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

1.  We went around about the mental health proposals you make and suggest.   Are you suggesting that people on mental health drugs should not have access to guns?   You realize that 1 - that is a lot of this country, and 2.  These people are law abiding citizens?

2.  We have acknowleged over and over the % of handguns used.  We have also discussed that we can't do anything about that, so we don't usually bring it up.   Hence why I suggest using regulations on guns + other factors, not just that.  

3.  I will give you that - nice catch.  I should have said that it does not take away your ability to protect your family.  

1.  I think it depends on the mental health issue. But do you really want the Fed Govt tracking all the people diagnosed with mental illnesses or releasing all that medical information that's supposed to be private into the public systems for database usage all in order to maybe stop a handful of wackos from buying a rifle every year? think long and hard before releasing that kracken

2.  Then you're really no interested in stopping the violence, no more than me lobbying to ban New Castle brown ale in an attempt to stop drunk driving. So much focus and attention on weapons so little used in murders .... baffles me man, it really does

3.  no, it doesn't 100% remove, it just means people are bullying me and manipulating me and forcing me to do things the way they want me to vs allowing me the freedoms to choose. Not much freedom there is there? :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

end the violence involved in drugs means shutting down illegal's drug trafficking, gangs, cartels .......... that's going to hit inner city people hard. You think the backlash on police is bad right now? But yes, I think that has to happen at some point. That people don't want to discuss it baffles me

Maybe I am wrong, but when I read this it sounds like you want to escalate the war on drugs rather than end it?  We need to end it!   Even if those peddling illegal drugs make us suffer a short term violent backlash when legal markets have them competing for the illegal scraps that are remain a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

"poor domestic situations" - again, I agree. Its very hard to make people want to do better - some people want basic income guarantee and just do nothing and let the Govt take care of them :(   I don't know how to tackle that really but with poverty and lack of education seems to also increased in violence

Why did the push for a Negative Income Tax in the seventies suddenly go away?  Because a test (or maybe a few) showed higher divorce rates.   It would be a few decades (really) until it was realized that this was a positive and not a negative as these were the result of escaping abusive situations.

And while I am sure there are those that support a UBI (or BIG) because they want to live off the government, the 70+% of economist and smart people from both sides of the aisle are not among them.  And in today's economy why do we want deadbeats getting in the way anyway?

But lets reduce gun violence without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizen seems like a pretty good reason to support a UBI. 

So who is it that won't address these real solutions again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Maybe I am wrong, but when I read this it sounds like you want to escalate the war on drugs rather than end it?  We need to end it!   Even if those peddling illegal drugs make us suffer a short term violent backlash when legal markets have them competing for the illegal scraps that are remain a while. 

hard drugs are an evil with zero benefits and they are the cause of violence and death in many many ways - that anyone would support them baffles me

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

And while I am sure there are those that support a UBI (or BIG) because they want to live off the government, the 70+% of economist and smart people from both sides of the aisle are not among them.  And in today's economy why do we want deadbeats getting in the way anyway?

But lets reduce gun violence without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizen seems like a pretty good reason to support a UBI. 

So who is it that won't address these real solutions again?

I have news for people in the UBI/BIG camp .... people are supposed to work. We have a need for productivity, to feel we've accomplished something. Encouraging the opposite creates slaves to the Fed Govt. 

I'd do the opposite - I'd remove many programs and instead figure a way to invest in communities where people could have jobs. With jobs comes responsibility, ownership in communities and productive citizens. 

People given free things rarely appreciate them :(

 

Today, 80 million gun owners in the USA did nothing wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

instead figure a way to invest in communities where people could have jobs. With jobs comes responsibility, ownership in communities and productive citizens. 

The infrastructure bill does this.  But you have headed off on another tangent...

Funny though that you keep accusing the "anti gun" crowd on ignoring the root causes, yet you reject every solution that might actually address those root causes.  Not only do you reject policies that if implement would reduce gun violence (as well as promote other social benefits", but you would "do the opposite".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The infrastructure bill does this.  But you have headed off on another tangent...

Funny though that you keep accusing the "anti gun" crowd on ignoring the root causes, yet you reject every solution that might actually address those root causes.  Not only do you reject policies that if implement would reduce gun violence (as well as promote other social benefits", but you would "do the opposite".

I believe that SC and others talk about broken homes, single parents, etc as a main problem.  wouldn't ubi help that in a variety of ways? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The infrastructure bill does this.  But you have headed off on another tangent...

Funny though that you keep accusing the "anti gun" crowd on ignoring the root causes, yet you reject every solution that might actually address those root causes.  Not only do you reject policies that if implement would reduce gun violence (as well as promote other social benefits", but you would "do the opposite".

Govt giving money isn't a solution

Unrestricted mind blowing drugs isn't a solution

There is no "infrastructure" bill - no more so than there really was a "covid relief" bill ... its a 4 Trillion spending package that'll inflate the Fed debt to 30 trillion or more :( and plenty of pork for the Democratic leaders :( 

Yes, I reject that more people on drugs will help, and I reject that more people not working and being productive citizens will help

 

I live in Caracas for 6 months, I've seen how living on Govt dime works 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Maybe I am wrong, but when I read this it sounds like you want to escalate the war on drugs rather than end it?  We need to end it!   Even if those peddling illegal drugs make us suffer a short term violent backlash when legal markets have them competing for the illegal scraps that are remain a while. 

Hint:  he wants more guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I believe that SC and others talk about broken homes, single parents, etc as a main problem.  wouldn't ubi help that in a variety of ways? 

no

Not having broken homes to begin with would help. Don't have kids if you're single would help. Get a job and don't be a statistic would help. 100% graduations rates would help. Not allowing so much imported things and getting some manufacturing jobs back would help. 

if none of the above happens, giving people a bit of money every month won't help no - attack the true core problems not just the symptoms

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Hint:  he wants more guns.

well lets see

in the past 12 years American's have bought 10's of millions of guns

and violent crimes have went down, and people protecting themselves have went up ....... almost every state now allow concealed carry, school shootings have plummeted 

guns are not the problem - we can see that I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

notice -fish- is still ignoring that my son't turkey hunting shotgun would be banned if CA / Gifford type laws were pass here in my home state

 

yes - anti-gun laws written to define an action ( assault ) can be worded to include many of the guns people hunt with

shhhhhhhh   they don't want people to know that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I think a wide net is trying to corral 80 million gun owners - why do you think it'd be easier to do that that focus on where crime is/exists?

I spent quite a bit of time last year researching the top 40 mass murderers and if I remember right I found that at least 3/4 of them were on mental health drugs. Violence breeds and spreads in inner cities, where drugs also breeds and spreads. Coincidence? you tell me. We address school/mall shootings with increased security - I figure if the money in your bank is important enough to have security around, so are our kids you know? and BTW its WORKING, far fewer incidents at schools !!  

I'm telling you right now a person can do far more damage with a shotgun and handguns then they can with "AK's, magazine size, etc" ........... facts have been shown over and over that only 2% of murders happen with rifles.

C'mon .... can you acknowledge that please? If you can, then you're saying that 98% of the murders you're not really caring about and to that I'll say why not ?

because I'll acknowledge mass murderers can and do use rifles etc but then also use handguns, a lot. You'll not stop them KarmaPolice, they will find their ways to hurt mass people because they're unstable and/or evil. If we poofed away all AR15's today, tomorrow a mass murderer will use 6 handguns. poof those away, and they'll use a semi-auto shotgun. 

how many poofs do you want to see before saying hey, lets stop the mass murderers because the weapons are not the problem ?

 

infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

yes, when anti-gun laws says I can't have this and this, that and that .... that's limiting, encroaching ... ie infringing

 

 

So the Vegas October 1 shooter would have done more damage with a handgun?   He killed 58 people and shot another 411.   He had a revolver and I'm not sure why he didn't use that instead of his fourteen AR-15s..

You live in a fantasy land.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, growlers said:

So the Vegas October 1 shooter would have done more damage with a handgun?   He killed 58 people and shot another 411.   He had a revolver and I'm not sure why he didn't use that instead of his fourteen AR-15s..

You live in a fantasy land.

In SC land, all guns are inanimate objects and one is no different than another.   According to his arguments, if that shooter did not have assault weapons (which he claims don't exist) he would have just used a hammer.   

There is no reason to attempt to engage him in any sort of rational discussion.   He will just spout NRA talking points, lies, false equivalencies and deflections.   

I encourage you not to engage.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, growlers said:

So the Vegas October 1 shooter would have done more damage with a handgun?   He killed 58 people and shot another 411.   He had a revolver and I'm not sure why he didn't use that instead of his fourteen AR-15s..

You live in a fantasy land.

unless its been updated, I think the Vegas shooter also didn't have a mental illness either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

unless its been updated, I think the Vegas shooter also didn't have a mental illness either.  

I assume anyone that kills 58 people has a mental illness.   Although mental illness is a serious problem in our country, trying to conflate gun violence and mental illness is just deflection.  Gun violence is gun violence.   The issue with gun violence is guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I assume anyone that kills 58 people has a mental illness.   Although mental illness is a serious problem in our country, trying to conflate gun violence and mental illness is just deflection.  Gun violence is gun violence.   The issue with gun violence is guns.

Not necessarily.  Hatred and ignorance aren't mental illnesses.  IMO it's not good enough just to say "you killed people, you must have had a mental illness".   There is other motivations at play sometimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Not necessarily.  Hatred and ignorance aren't mental illnesses.  IMO it's not good enough just to say "you killed people, you must have had a mental illness".   There is other motivations at play sometimes.  

As long as we're willing to write off gun violence by saying that it was due to mental illness and not guns we're just reading the NRA playbook.  SC literally just tried to write off 40 mass shootings as mental illness and blame them on the shooter taking prescription medication.   

Those 40 mass shootings were all gun violence.   

These are separate issues.

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, growlers said:

So the Vegas October 1 shooter would have done more damage with a handgun?   He killed 58 people and shot another 411.   He had a revolver and I'm not sure why he didn't use that instead of his fourteen AR-15s..

You live in a fantasy land.

you take probably the most incredible mass shooting in American history as your example ? Pollock wasn't legally allowed to shoot anyone. He did. He likely broke dozens of laws transporting those guns, getting them where he did, and all that. he had explosives - I'm quite sure not legal in the way he had them. 

gun control laws didn't bind him - you think another set of laws would have? 

you could look at Pollock and that entire ordeal and say hey, why did the Mandalay allow a guy to carry in so many guns? why don't we metal detector and search luggage of every hotel stayer in America? That would stop another hotel shooting right ?

 

Pollock is a grand mystery - truly ........... what he did will be one of the top unsolved mysteries of all time. can you google and find out where he got his guns? Which types were they? What was his motive? Can you really google and find ANYTHING on Pollock over the last 3 years?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, -fish- said:

SC literally just tried to write off 40 mass shootings as mental illness and blame them on the shooter taking prescription medication.   

Those 40 mass shootings were all gun violence.   

These are separate issues.

and I disagree

if people having guns = murders..... buddy you'd see us 80 million gun owners killing thousands every day. it would be a blood bath

fact is - 80 million gun owners did nothing wrong today 

a gun is never, ever, ever sad, happy, content or violent .... they're an object, nothing more

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, belljr said:

you count the drive by's at a high school football game as a school shooting ?

the numbers are distorted on purpose - research it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

unless its been updated, I think the Vegas shooter also didn't have a mental illness either.  

its bizarre a bit how little we know about Pollock ......... you can google Lanza, Klebold/Dillion, you can google other mass shooters and find information

you can find more about the Boulder shooter than Pollock

bizarre 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Me staring down the SC rabbit hole.  

“must resist, must resist...” as I lean in to take a step.  

If you’d like, I can mail you a brick that you can smack your head against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

As long as we're willing to write off gun violence by saying that it was due to mental illness and not guns we're just reading the NRA playbook.  SC literally just tried to write off 40 mass shootings as mental illness and blame them on the shooter taking prescription medication.   

Those 40 mass shootings were all gun violence.   

These are separate issues.

Personally, I bring it up to try to show how disconnected they are.   Mental health is an important topic to me, but the more I think about it, the less I think focusing on that will help the topics we are talking about.  There is just too many profiles of shooters to narrow the focus down effectively.  

I was just confused because I took your post as connecting them by saying that anybody who kills that many people had a mental illness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Personally, I bring it up to try to show how disconnected they are.   Mental health is an important topic to me, but the more I think about it, the less I think focusing on that will help the topics we are talking about.  There is just too many profiles of shooters to narrow the focus down effectively.  

I was just confused because I took your post as connecting them by saying that anybody who kills that many people had a mental illness. 

Yeah, it was the opposite.   You'll always be able to look at a mass shooter and claim they have a mental illness.  Hell, a guy that has a bunker and owns a couple dozen guns is probably significantly mentally ill.   It matters for background checks and red flag laws, but only if it's diagnosed and treated.  I'm willing to bet that people that are willing to ignore statistics and put their own families at risk to "protect" themselves against a boogeyman aren't seeking a whole lot of professional help in the first place.   We're not going to get anywhere with gun violence by sending  a few people to therapy.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, -fish- said:

If you’d like, I can mail you a brick that you can smack your head against.

As there’s no difference between a brick or a gun, they’re both just tools, go ahead and use a gun.  

Edited by dkp993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

As there’s no difference between a brick or a gun, they’re both just tools, go ahead and use a gun.  

SC's son should have 0 issues hunting with a brick then!  A lot cheaper too- win, win.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you take probably the most incredible mass shooting in American history as your example ? Pollock wasn't legally allowed to shoot anyone. He did. He likely broke dozens of laws transporting those guns, getting them where he did, and all that. he had explosives - I'm quite sure not legal in the way he had them. 

gun control laws didn't bind him - you think another set of laws would have? 

you could look at Pollock and that entire ordeal and say hey, why did the Mandalay allow a guy to carry in so many guns? why don't we metal detector and search luggage of every hotel stayer in America? That would stop another hotel shooting right ?

 

Pollock is a grand mystery - truly ........... what he did will be one of the top unsolved mysteries of all time. can you google and find out where he got his guns? Which types were they? What was his motive? Can you really google and find ANYTHING on Pollock over the last 3 years?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1-October-FIT-Criminal-Investigative-Report-FINAL_080318.pdf

 

Of course I am taking the most horrific example, it is a thread about mass shootings.  Should we leave this one out for some reason?

The link above answers all your "unknowable" questions about the type of guns he used.     He didn't use a turkey gun.   You can even masturbate to the pictures of the guns if you would like.

If he didn't have access to these guns he couldn't have killed so many people.    It is as simple as that.   If we allowed rocket launchers to be sold I have no doubt he would have successfully used those to blow up the jet fuel tankers instead of unsuccessfully shooting them with his AR-15 to cause more carnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...