Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

CVS, Costco, and Target  and many other large retailers don't allow firearms in their stores per their policies. Neither do almost all movie theaters. 

My supposition (no, I don't have proof) is that there are many people that carry concealed weapons everywhere they go.  They simply ignore these policies and go about their business in the store.

All of you that carry concealed, have you entered any of these establishments with a weapon on your person?

That why I said I believe there's a ton of this going on right now.  I bet very few read the policies of every retailer they enter. 

Nope.  I respect the rights of businesses as well as individuals who don't want firearms in their home.  It's my responsibility as a lawful CC owner to be aware of all of that.  Even when I travel I make sure to look at the state firearm laws of each state I'm going thru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Nope.  I respect the rights of businesses as well as individuals who don't want firearms in their home.  It's my responsibility as a lawful CC owner to be aware of all of that.  Even when I travel I make sure to look at the state firearm laws of each state I'm going thru.

Good for you.  I think it likely not all CC are as diligent. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2021 at 1:40 AM, matuski said:

My wife is enrolled in a concealed carry class required by TX state law.  Might want to check your facts.

 

Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill into law.

 

House Bill 1927 eliminates the requirement for Texas residents to obtain a license to carry handguns if they’re not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun. The signing was reported by the Texas Legislature's official website, which tracks the progress of legislation. Abbott's office has announced a ceremonial signing of the bill and other gun-related legislation at 11 a.m. Thursday.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, belljr said:

Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1, after Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed the permitless carry bill into law.

 

House Bill 1927 eliminates the requirement for Texas residents to obtain a license to carry handguns if they’re not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun. The signing was reported by the Texas Legislature's official website, which tracks the progress of legislation. Abbott's office has announced a ceremonial signing of the bill and other gun-related legislation at 11 a.m. Thursday.

Thanks - I'm not a fan of this per se.

eta - not suprisingly as I read the arguments I am even less of a fan of both sides' reasoning for and against.  Politicians are buffoons.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 11:13 AM, Max Power said:

You know there is a training and education piece that goes into CCH over open carry? 

I'd prefer someone who conceals every day of the week. Open carry doesn't seem wise to me.

I learned in this thread that some states conceal carry training/certification isn't much more than a formality.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

mildly funny, but not a fan of going this route.  

orchestrated by the father of a mass shooting victim who will never graduate.  fine with him exposing them to the consequences of their actions, especially Lott's lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

orchestrated by the father of a mass shooting victim who will never graduate.  fine with him exposing them to the consequences of their actions, especially Lott's lies.

I get the father is finding an avenue to express his frustrations and anger towards those he finds worthy of public scorn.  I get the "guilty pleasure" that others might get from this.  But in the grand scheme of things I'd think this is likely counter productive to the goals of more or better gun regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I get the father is finding an avenue to express his frustrations and anger towards those he finds worthy of public scorn.  I get the "guilty pleasure" that others might get from this.  But in the grand scheme of things I'd think this is likely counter productive to the goals of more or better gun regulations.

anything that exposes the NRA and its favorite fraudulent "researcher" as shills for the gun industry is probably a net positive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 8:13 AM, KarmaPolice said:

SC's head just exploded.  Double whammy of can't getting into businesses because he is strapped and not vaccinated? 

shockingly, legal law abiding citizens do not carry concealed where its not allowed

criminals do though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 12:15 PM, -fish- said:

there are at least 15 states with no training requirement whatsoever for concealed carry.  Texas just became one.  In every one, gun crime and homicide increased.

link please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

link please

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

Quote

With seemingly conflicting evidence, we conclude that the best available studies provide inconclusive evidence for the effect of shall-issue laws on firearm homicides.

Quote

However, because analyses on all violent crimes may have greater statistical power to detect any such effects, and because our scoring criteria indicate it, we conclude that there is limited evidence that shall-issue laws may increase violent crime.

 

Edited by Gawain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bigbottom said:

Hero stops a mass shooting and then is mistakenly identified as the shooter and killed by police. I can understand how this could happen in a chaotic situation, but man, this is sad. 

https://apple.news/AzWcK-mO4Q5eS2EwHcS_43w

that's tragic - incredibly tragic

 

but contrary to what -fish- wants people to believe, good guys with guns saves lives - Johnny Hurley is a hero

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the theory that car-jacking stats should be used as a primary indicator of crime in a location.

There is less room for interpretation with this stat and is almost universally a crime between a criminal element and a law abiding citizen.

It also indicates how emboldened a criminal is in each area. 

So I'm curious if carry states have lower carjackings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

So I'm curious if carry states have lower carjackings.

I'm not sure anyone really keeps tracks/totals on how many carjackings happen, are foiled, are successful etc

I know my buddy in south TX had a guy attempt to come into his car at a traffic light .... Joe put his gun to the window, the guy raised his hands and backed away

That incident wasn't counted anywhere

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

that's tragic - incredibly tragic

 

but contrary to what -fish- wants people to believe, good guys with guns saves lives - Johnny Hurley is a hero

yeah, I mean, how many times have we heard from him and others that the "good guys stop bad guys with guns" isn't true?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

People in here have also said that more people running around with guns could make it harder for police to do their job and make it more dangerous for police.   Tragically, that seemed to be the case here.  

Yeah, there were definitely some mistakes here by the "good guy".  Like, once the attacker was down he should have dropped his own weapon and not actually scooped up the shooter's weapon and started walking with it.

I understand heat of the moment stuff, but you gotta' think in these situations as much as possible.

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

12 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

I understand heat of the moment stuff, but you gotta' think in these situations as much as possible.

Isn't this ultimately the problem more often than not (statistically)?   Most people are not thinking straight when facing these circumstances.  Even many of our high profile police shootings and such fall under this category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Stealthycat said:
On 6/28/2021 at 9:36 PM, Gawain said:

that seems contrary to what fish said then ?

For sake of argument lets agree that he is wrong and such laws have no impact on violent crime.   That would also mean that those that promote such laws for protection against such violent crime are either wrong in the sense that it does not offer such protection or are shifting violent crime onto others.  Right?  Because "no impact" would mean the same crimes are still happening and at best for those carrying just happening to someone else.

For example

21 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I know my buddy in south TX had a guy attempt to come into his car at a traffic light .... Joe put his gun to the window, the guy raised his hands and backed away

Did this guy just give up that day, or was someone else car jacked instead?

Oh, and I would argue that if someone else was car jacked then there was an increase in violent crime that was just 

21 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

wasn't counted anywhere

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

yeah, I mean, how many times have we heard from him and others that the "good guys stop bad guys with guns" isn't true?  

https://www.wdtv.com/2021/06/20/sheriff-victim-shoots-man-chest-attacking-her/

another case - but you'll not see this on CNN 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

People in here have also said that more people running around with guns could make it harder for police to do their job and make it more dangerous for police.   Tragically, that seemed to be the case here.  

would you have rather the crazy guy kill 30 people in a mass murder than a hero take action ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

would you have rather the crazy guy kill 30 people in a mass murder than a hero take action ?

 

Depends on the skills and how calm and collected the "hero" can be in the situation.  Does he thwart the "crazy guy" before they combine to kill 30+ people or after?   I am assuming that if the killer kills 10, the hero kills 4 bystanders before stopping the killer that some would insist that 30+ would have been killed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Depends on the skills and how calm and collected the "hero" can be in the situation.  Does he thwart the "crazy guy" before they combine to kill 30+ people or after?   I am assuming that if the killer kills 10, the hero kills 4 bystanders before stopping the killer that some would insist that 30+ would have been killed. 

as this story sits

 

if we're going to question the actions of a hero ... where are we as a society at that point ? I guess Flight 93 passengers should have just sit in their seats and not fought back? They all died .... and they were heroes

have you ever heard of

Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times

 

We are right now in the last 5 words .... we are a nation of weak, passive people who seem to enjoy being victims and that is enabling criminals

and I'm 100% against that entire concept that seems to be popular in today's world

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've started to teach my kids more about firearms lately and have taken them out to the range a lot lately.

I actually have a side hustle as an RSO and firearms instructor there. It's actually refreshing to see the amount of people working with their kids and all the newcomers who are finally ready to take protection into their own hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

as this story sits

 

if we're going to question the actions of a hero ... where are we as a society at that point ? I guess Flight 93 passengers should have just sit in their seats and not fought back? They all died .... and they were heroes

have you ever heard of

Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times

 

We are right now in the last 5 words .... we are a nation of weak, passive people who seem to enjoy being victims and that is enabling criminals

and I'm 100% against that entire concept that seems to be popular in today's world

This has zilch to do with my answering your question.  And beyond that :no: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Depends on the skills and how calm and collected the "hero" can be in the situation.  Does he thwart the "crazy guy" before they combine to kill 30+ people or after?   I am assuming that if the killer kills 10, the hero kills 4 bystanders before stopping the killer that some would insist that 30+ would have been killed. 

 

2 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

This has zilch to do with my answering your question.  And beyond that :no: .

its has everything to do with it - I asked "would you have rather the crazy guy kill 30 people in a mass murder than a hero take action ?"

you try to dissect and what if and assume away the scenario .... a hero stood up for what was right when a bunch of weak people did nothing

I'll take the hero any day, I'll take the person standing for what's right every day

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Max Power said:

It's actually refreshing to see the amount of people working with their kids and all the newcomers who are finally ready to take protection into their own hands. 

Yikes on the bolded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

its has everything to do with it - I asked "would you have rather the crazy guy kill 30 people in a mass murder than a hero take action ?"

you try to dissect and what if and assume away the scenario

The only one assuming was you.  

You asked the board to chose between a given scenario (30 are killed) and a completely indeterminate situation (hero takes action).  The choice is dependent on how the indeterminate situation plays out.  No can assume what happens after the "hero" get involved.  It might be better.  It might be worst.  You just assume that the scenarios where it will be better will be the case.  There is no evidence that this presumption is even reasonable, yet alone should be the default.  So sorry, the answer is that it depends.

 

Quote

Oh, I could be a hero
I could be a lover of a thousand movie queens
I could be a hero
I could be anything, anything in my dreams.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Interesting take, surprised this hasn't come up before.  I would like to see how much the insurance will cost, and what it is covers.  

One article I read was only $25-30. 

ETA:  LINK

The first would requires every gun owner have liability insurance coverage for their firearms. The insurance could not legally cover intentional harm caused by a gun owner.

The second requires gun owners to pay an annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun-related injuries and death, including police and medical services.

Edited by KarmaPolice
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

One article I read was only $25-30. 

ETA:  LINK

The first would requires every gun owner have liability insurance coverage for their firearms. The insurance could not legally cover intentional harm caused by a gun owner.

The second requires gun owners to pay an annual fee to compensate taxpayers for the public cost of responding to gun-related injuries and death, including police and medical services.

t seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm not a gun owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairWarning said:

Interesting take, surprised this hasn't come up before.  I would like to see how much the insurance will cost, and what it is covers.  

In one of the old gun control threads it was one of the solutions I (and I’m assuming others) brought up. It seems like a total no-brainer and I hope San Jose is able to implement it without it getting struck down by the courts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Max Power said:

Why does that scare you?

More guns in circulation. Many with newbies that may not have the experience or knowledge on safe gun storage.  That leads to more accidents, especially with kids, more successful suicide attempts, more domestic violence murders, and more stolen weapons used in crimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

More guns in circulation. Many with newbies that may not have the experience or knowledge on safe gun storage.  That leads to more accidents, especially with kids, more successful suicide attempts, more domestic violence murders, and more stolen weapons used in crimes. 

Leading to more people afraid and running for the false security of guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:lmao:. The more guns argument always cracks me up. Especially when you use the word "circulation" acknowledging that they are regularly changing hands.  There are 390 million guns in America.  More guns than there are people!  Do the math! 

That cat is out of the bag.  

Train has left the station. 

Water under the bridge.  

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

5 hours ago, tonydead said:

:lmao:. The more guns argument always cracks me up. Especially when you use the word "circulation" acknowledging that they are regularly changing hands.  There are 390 million guns in America.  More guns than there are people!  Do the math! 

That cat is out of the bag.  

Train has left the station. 

Water under the bridge.  

Maybe we should build a dam to control the flow of the river?

Maybe we should install a railroad management system to control rail traffic and prevent accidents.

As for the cat in a bag.  I don't know why you would want a cat in a bag anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

So from what I am reading on a couple sites is that the San Jose proposal will require gun owners to have liability insurance that helps cover the cost of gun violence - ambulance, calls, hospital costs, etc?

how can criminals be forced to buy insurance? won't they just not and break the law?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

More guns in circulation. Many with newbies that may not have the experience or knowledge on safe gun storage.  That leads to more accidents, especially with kids, more successful suicide attempts, more domestic violence murders, and more stolen weapons used in crimes. 

but we have more guns than EVER over the last 3 decades, and overall crimes/murders have fallen

you know that right? 

accidents are tragic but they're also rare, suicide is a personal choice and the weapon isn't the problem and people stealing weapons is the problem, not the weapons ( you'd never try and lobby for less cars to stop carjackings, right?)

violent murders ARE the problem - lets focus on the people doing those things. it'll work if we do

 

side note - my girlfriend just took a new job at a school. Armed guard and metal detector and she's like hmmm, that's a bit unnerving and I said why? YOUR safety is paramount as are the students and faculty - be happy they've got those safety measures !!  She see's it a bit different now and is very comfortable with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

how can criminals be forced to buy insurance? won't they just not and break the law?

 

If you'd bother to look at the link, it said right in there :

“We know that crooks aren’t going to get insurance. Of course, they’re not,” Liccardo said. “So, when a police officer responds to a domestic violence call and asks the question that every officer asks which is ‘Are there any guns in the home?’ at that time the officer can determine if that individual has followed the law to get insurance.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

If you'd bother to look at the link, it said right in there :

“We know that crooks aren’t going to get insurance. Of course, they’re not,” Liccardo said. “So, when a police officer responds to a domestic violence call and asks the question that every officer asks which is ‘Are there any guns in the home?’ at that time the officer can determine if that individual has followed the law to get insurance.”

what kind of sense does a law like that even make ??  

 

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...