Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yeah, I would guess as police confiscate weapons they would trace where they came from.  

LINK

 

DOES CHICAGO HAVE THE TOUGHEST GUN LAWS IN THE NATION?

No. Trump and his administration have wrongly made this assertion . Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982. Those who’d already purchased and registered their handguns were allowed to keep them. In 2010, the ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2013, Illinois became the last state in the nation to approve concealed carry.

Illinois is considered to have fairly tight gun laws. The state requires gun owners to obtain licenses and face background checks. It also imposes waiting periods on purchases. But unlike New York and California, Illinois, among other things, does not ban assault weapons or large-capacity magazines and does not require a state license for firearms dealers or one to sell ammunition, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

 

 

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF ILLEGAL CHICAGO GUNS?

According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons, followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10 source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana.

 

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement 

 

oh well, that's not going to be a one sided slanted report is it ? Can I respond with something from Wayne LaPierre then ?

Apparently Chicago also did a study and found out Chicago wasn't responsible either.  It was someone else.  :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

 

Apparently Chicago also did a study and found out Chicago wasn't responsible either.  It was someone else.  :shrug:

What exactly are you expecting - St. Louis police to track guns that police confiscated in Chicago? 

Feel free to post something that says different.   A decent portion - 40%, still coming from inside the state too.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

What exactly are you expecting - St. Louis police to track guns that police confiscated in Chicago? 

Feel free to post something that says different.   A decent portion - 40%, still coming from inside the state too.  

40% is not small number, if true, but what about the other 60%?  That's an even BIGGER number and yet the gun violence is still out of control in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

40% is not small number, if true, but what about the other 60%?  That's an even BIGGER number and yet the gun violence is still out of control in Chicago.

and in that there was an explanation as to why the violence jumped back up-  you know, verified what fish posted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

and in that there was an explanation as to why the violence jumped back up-  you know, verified what fish posted

Actually, its been debunked by @Stealthycat.  If Heller was REALLY the issue we would have been seeing violence increase the year after it was decided.  But the rise in violence didn't happen until 2016/17.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

and in that there was an explanation as to why the violence jumped back up-  you know, verified what fish posted

no there wasn't - for 4-5 years there wasn't a big jump at all

why ?

what happened in 2016/2017 that made the murders jump so high ?  it wasn't because of a ruling in 2008 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

What exactly are you expecting - St. Louis police to track guns that police confiscated in Chicago? 

Feel free to post something that says different.   A decent portion - 40%, still coming from inside the state too.  

it all depends on whos doing the "investigations"

 

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/05/20/mayor-illegal-guns-off-streets-police-found-one-her-home-n45478

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

what is an assault weapon ?

 

The answer, of course, is a rifle or pistol with select fire between semi-automatic and full-automatic.  

Others have expanded that definition to include anything with magazines exceeding certain capacity, handgrips, folding stocks, foregrips, braces and other items. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, popeye said:

The answer, of course, is a rifle or pistol with select fire between semi-automatic and full-automatic.  

Others have expanded that definition to include anything with magazines exceeding certain capacity, handgrips, folding stocks, foregrips, braces and other items. 

so...anything that shoots a bullet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Obviously, if there's no such thing as an assault weapon than an assault weapon ban shouldn't bother anyone, since it wouldn't ban anything.   This is another false NRA talking point that has been completely dismantled several times in this thread.

First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the gun industry to sell more guns.   After the term got stigmatized  due to the frequent use in mass murders, marketing was changed to call them "modern sporting rifles."   

Second, an "assault weapon" ban or restriction is specific to each individual location that passes a law, so each must define it.   There is no consensus on how to best define it so that people seeking to evade the law are prevented from doing so.    Building an AR-15 pistol avoids a ban on assault weapons in some states, but effectively lets someone own a gun with the same capabilities.   Some states have gone the other way and went very general, covering all semi-auto rifles.   This creates its own problems.

Regardless of this false and disingenuous argument, the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 was effective, as mass shootings dropped 37% during its 10 year effective period and then rose 183% after.   The argument that someone can't figure out what was banned is just a red herring.  

SC should just number his NRA talking points, so when he is shown to be wrong as to one and changes the subject, he can just post the number of the next false argument he wants to repeat.   #3, Cars and Alcohol!

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

30 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Obviously, if there's no such thing as an assault weapon than an assault weapon ban shouldn't bother anyone, since it wouldn't ban anything.   This is another false NRA talking point that has been completely dismantled several times in this thread.

First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the gun industry to sell more guns.   After the term got stigmatized  due to the frequent use in mass murders, marketing was changed to call them "modern sporting rifles."   

Second, an "assault weapon" ban or restriction is specific to each individual location that passes a law, so each must define it.   There is no consensus on how to best define it so that people seeking to evade the law are prevented from doing so.    Building an AR-15 pistol avoids a ban on assault weapons in some states, but effectively lets someone own a gun with the same capabilities.   Some states have gone the other way and went very general, covering all semi-auto rifles.   This creates its own problems.

Regardless of this false and disingenuous argument, the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 was effective, as mass shootings dropped 37% during its 10 year effective period and then rose 183% after.   The argument that someone can't figure out what was banned is just a red herring.  

SC should just number his NRA talking points, so when he is shown to be wrong as to one and changes the subject, he can just post the number of the next false argument he wants to repeat.   #3, Cars and Alcohol!

Not sure if the guy spouting talking points should be pointing fingers and accusing others of spouting talking points.  I mean, that's not a good look and damages your credibility.  :shrug:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does 17 shootings in five hours in Chicago last night count as mass shootings?  I would ask the mayor, but I'm white.

 

O/U 60.5 shootings in chicago from now until 6 AM Monday - what do you have?  

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Does 17 shootings in five hours in Chicago last night count as mass shootings?  I would ask the mayor, but I'm white.

 

O/U 60.5 shootings in chicago from now until 6 AM Monday - what do you have?  

You make an excellent argument for overturning Miller, Heller and McDonald.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

You make an excellent argument for overturning Miller, Heller and McDonald.

I had to look it up, couldn’t remember the case. The problem is the people shooting are rarely in self-defense, it’s gang punks. Taking away that right to defend oneself will work as well as defunding the police.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

I had to look it up, couldn’t remember the case. The problem is the people shooting are rarely in self-defense, it’s gang punks. Taking away that right to defend oneself will work as well as defunding the police.

Can we try it and see how it goes?  I bet it decreases gun violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

Can we try it and see how it goes?  I bet it decreases gun violence.

Based on…..?   The black and Latino gangs respect each other’s drug territory, lol.   We may have peace in Gaza first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Can we try it and see how it goes?  I bet it decreases gun violence.

Or you could just move to a country that already bans their citizens from having guns. Why don't you try North Korea? Let us know how that works out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:
6 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Actually, its been debunked by @Stealthycat If Heller was REALLY the issue we would have been seeing violence increase the year after it was decided.  But the rise in violence didn't happen until 2016/17.

I must have missed that post. 

It's wrong, anyway.  Heller didn't apply until McDonald, which was in 2010.   Gun violence spiked in 2011 from previous levels.  Chicago homicides were at a low in 2010 and have been rising since.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

I had to look it up, couldn’t remember the case. The problem is the people shooting are rarely in self-defense, it’s gang punks. Taking away that right to defend oneself will work as well as defunding the police.

Right.   Needing to allow everyone to own as many  handguns as they can purchase for the sake of "home defense" is incredibly stupid, but it's the direct result of Miller and Heller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Right.   Needing to allow everyone to own as many  handguns as they can purchase for the sake of "home defense" is incredibly stupid, but it's the direct result of Miller and Heller.

I’m not a gun owner, nor do I get the culture of it.   If there were fewer break-ins, there would be less of a need to protect yourself, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Or you could just move to a country that already bans their citizens from having guns. Why don't you try North Korea? Let us know how that works out.

Why don't you just move from WA state?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Not sure if the guy spouting talking points should be pointing fingers and accusing others of spouting talking points.  I mean, that's not a good look and damages your credibility.  :shrug:

Since I use actual facts to support my posts, I'm not worried about your opinion about my credibility.    Run along.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Right.   Needing to allow everyone to own as many  handguns as they can purchase for the sake of "home defense" is incredibly stupid, but it's the direct result of Miller and Heller.

It’s their legal right to own one or 500.  I’ll post the shootings this weekend and you can determine if they were home defense or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Huh?  Not sure where this is coming from. :shrug:

I guess you don't read what you post.  that actually makes a lot of sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, FairWarning said:

What’s worse, a mass shooting or a weekend in chicago?

They’re both bad, as is the story of a 6 year old dying from getting shot in a road rage incident. This insanity has to stop. I enjoy shooting guns for target practice and the occasional hunting trip, but this issue isn’t going away with politicians doing the nothing they’re currently doing. I have a 6 year old, he’s my youngest, and these stories always make me sad, because they’re preventable. Restrict access to guns, require mental health checks regularly, just do something, because I am light years past sick of hearing these stories. And before we get the “but my rights!” crowd in here, I’m not saying to just take everything from everybody. That’s stupid. I’m saying that there are a lot of people who have no business owning guns, and we have to do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Kal El said:

They’re both bad, as is the story of a 6 year old dying from getting shot in a road rage incident. This insanity has to stop. I enjoy shooting guns for target practice and the occasional hunting trip, but this issue isn’t going away with politicians doing the nothing they’re currently doing. I have a 6 year old, he’s my youngest, and these stories always make me sad, because they’re preventable. Restrict access to guns, require mental health checks regularly, just do something, because I am light years past sick of hearing these stories. And before we get the “but my rights!” crowd in here, I’m not saying to just take everything from everybody. That’s stupid. I’m saying that there are a lot of people who have no business owning guns, and we have to do something.

Who gets to decide who "has no business owning guns"?  And what is the criteria for that? 

I think that's the critical part.  Pro-2A people see future scope creep here - we give them an inch and then in 6 months they want a mile.  And the criteria expand and expand until virtually no one can get a gun.  THAT'S the fear and it's a rational fear.  I mean, it's happened already why wouldn't it happen again?

The laws we have on the books now aren't good enough?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Who gets to decide who "has no business owning guns"?  And what is the criteria for that? 

I think that's the critical part.  Pro-2A people see future scope creep here - we give them an inch and then in 6 months they want a mile.  And the criteria expand and expand until virtually no one can get a gun.  THAT'S the fear and it's a rational fear.  I mean, it's happened already why wouldn't it happen again?

The laws we have on the books now aren't good enough?

They clearly aren’t, since the same crap keeps happening! As far as “it’s already happening,” who needs an assault rifle? That ruins the meat of whatever you’re hunting, not to mention that it’s a colossal waste of ammo, and that stuff’s already not cheap as it is. I’m very pro 2A, however, it has to be done the right way. What’s so wrong about getting a mental health check before owning a gun? The brain can get sick or hurt like any other organ, but our mental health system is abysmal. That said, I’ll gladly be first in line for this, if it does in fact happen, and if I’m deemed unfit for gun ownership, I’ll live with that. I don’t have to have a gun to feel complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Who gets to decide who "has no business owning guns"?  And what is the criteria for that? 

I think that's the critical part.  Pro-2A people see future scope creep here - we give them an inch and then in 6 months they want a mile.  And the criteria expand and expand until virtually no one can get a gun.  THAT'S the fear and it's a rational fear.  I mean, it's happened already why wouldn't it happen again?

The laws we have on the books now aren't good enough?

how do you reconcile those thoughts with knowing that the SC rulings protect many guns, and many liberals also own guns and don't want them to go away? 

that is why I believe it's a completely irrational fear.  but it sure does rile up the base and increases gun sales.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the laws on the books aren't good enough.  thats why 77% of gun owners support expanded background checks.  thats why gun show and private sale loopholes need to be closed.  that's why we need red flag laws (gun zealots blame everything in mental health, but won't support laws about mental health).   closing the "boyfriend loophole" in the Violence Against Women Act.

Weird how the NRA opposes them all.  NRA argues that criminals don't follow laws, so laws will only affect law abiding citizens.  but crime statistics show this is absolutely false.  same falsehoods, different day. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kal El said:

They’re both bad, as is the story of a 6 year old dying from getting shot in a road rage incident.

That’s my neck of the woods.  Drive the 91 almost every day.  Been a rash of shootings the past few weeks/months in that area on the freeway.  Wife and I were talking about that shooting last night. We have a 6yr old ourselves.  So incredibly heartbreaking.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

another mass shooting today.  Democrats announce no deal to be reached on expanded background checks, despite overwhelming public support.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can we stop calling it a mass shooting where a fight breaks out and opens fire vs a random opening fire in a store or something?  I get that technically it's 4 or more people dying and it sucks but there is a difference imo

Edited by belljr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, belljr said:

Can we stop calling it a mass shooting where a fight breaks out and opens fire vs a random opening fire in a store or something?  I get that technically it's 4 or more people dying and it sucks but there is a difference imo

why? are some mass murders not as bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, -fish- said:

why? are some mass murders not as bad?

When the news runs with mass shooting in X today, I'm expecting to see that a guy ran into a store/office/etc and just started shooting away.

But then you read the article and it was a group of people in a fight outside of a bar where 4 people were shot

Sad that people may have  died but they are definitely not the same thing.  I'm all for recategorizing one of them to differentiate

 

Edited by belljr
  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, belljr said:

When the news runs with mass shooting in X today, I'm expecting to see that a guy ran into a store/office/etc and just started shooting away.

But then you read the article and it was a group of people in a fight outside of a bar where 4 people were shot

Sad that people may have  died but they are definitely not the same thing.  I'm all for recategorizing one of them to differentiate

 

It would ended up exactly the same if these clowns had bats and knives or Sarin or suitcase nukes.  No difference in outcome.  A murderer is gonna murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, belljr said:

When the news runs with mass shooting in X today, I'm expecting to see that a guy ran into a store/office/etc and just started shooting away.

But then you read the article and it was a group of people in a fight outside of a bar where 4 people were shot

Sad that people may have  died but they are definitely not the same thing.  I'm all for recategorizing one of them to differentiate

 

Differentiating mass murder by motivation is a deflection from the problem, which is nearly unregulated gun possession.   

Your response was to my mention of the mass shooting in New Jersey, which was a shooting at a house party.   Police have now confirmed it was a "targeted attack."   So if this is a single individual, it's a mass shooting, but if it was a couple of shooters it wasn't?   Makes no sense at all.

"This is a nation awash in guns, and we're not an island," the governor said. "We're not immune."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/24/new-jersey-house-party-shooting-victims-identified-suspect-arrested/5242044001/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Differentiating mass murder by motivation is a deflection from the problem, which is nearly unregulated gun possession.   

Your response was to my mention of the mass shooting in New Jersey, which was a shooting at a house party.   Police have now confirmed it was a "targeted attack."   So if this is a single individual, it's a mass shooting, but if it was a couple of shooters it wasn't?   Makes no sense at all.

"This is a nation awash in guns, and we're not an island," the governor said. "We're not immune."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/24/new-jersey-house-party-shooting-victims-identified-suspect-arrested/5242044001/

Nearly unregulated?  Lol.

That's not even close to true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Differentiating mass murder by motivation is a deflection from the problem, which is nearly unregulated gun possession.   

Your response was to my mention of the mass shooting in New Jersey, which was a shooting at a house party.   Police have now confirmed it was a "targeted attack."   So if this is a single individual, it's a mass shooting, but if it was a couple of shooters it wasn't?   Makes no sense at all.

"This is a nation awash in guns, and we're not an island," the governor said. "We're not immune."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/24/new-jersey-house-party-shooting-victims-identified-suspect-arrested/5242044001/

It's considered a "mass shooting" even  if no one dies

NJ is one of the most regulated guns states

Edited by belljr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Differentiating mass murder by motivation is a deflection from the problem, which is nearly unregulated gun possession.   

Your response was to my mention of the mass shooting in New Jersey, which was a shooting at a house party.   Police have now confirmed it was a "targeted attack."   So if this is a single individual, it's a mass shooting, but if it was a couple of shooters it wasn't?   Makes no sense at all.

"This is a nation awash in guns, and we're not an island," the governor said. "We're not immune."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/24/new-jersey-house-party-shooting-victims-identified-suspect-arrested/5242044001/

I never replied to you so not sure why you think so.  I never once claimed this was not one.   And I don't live too far from where this took place.

This shouldnt be lumped together with other mass shootings is my point

4 injured in Illinois shooting

Just 35 miles south of Chicago, violence erupted at a private event in Park Forest, Illinois, early Sunday morning, according to police.

Police responded to a celebration event at a theater shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday morning, according to a Park Forest Police Department news release. The initial investigation into the shooting indicates a physical altercation took place inside the business and the shooting took place shortly after.

Edited by belljr
  • Like 1
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...