Mass Shootings

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:34 am
  • The Parkland kids are still out there. They're orgainzing on social media. They are registering young voters.

    They're moving the needle. And it's not towards the GRA crowd.
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17037
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:52 am
  • peachesenregalia wrote:
    sutz wrote:The Parkland kids are still out there. They're orgainzing on social media. They are registering young voters.

    They're moving the needle. And it's not towards the GRA crowd.

    Crisis actors hired by George Soros. Complete hoax.


    How contemporary, yet. pulpy
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15928
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:56 am
  • The common thread amongst most of these shooters is that they are male and have a history of hatred toward women.
    Figuring out why this is so in the United State of America is the first step towards a solution.
    Palmegranite
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:53 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:54 am
  • Cherry picking is not a counter argument. The shooters are all male and there is a common thread.
    The majority of them have roots in domestic violence.
    I could attempt to list them all; Dayton, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, but too many to list.

    In my home town last summer, it was a so-called "incel",
    whose choice of mass murder was a van, driven up onto a sidewalk, killing ten, injuring 16, most of them women.
    Palmegranite
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:53 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:55 am
  • peachesenregalia wrote:
    Palmegranite wrote:The common thread amongst most of these shooters is that they are male and have a history of hatred toward women.
    Figuring out why this is so in the United State of America is the first step towards a solution.

    Sandy hook shooter was a Muslim fundamentalist. Dayton shooter was a left wing extremist. Las Vegas shooter was married and had apparently no motive. Stop talking nonsense.


    Sandy hook shooter was not a Muslim fundamentalist. But you are correct that the hatred towards women was not a "common thread," albeit prevalent in enough of the shooters.

    The common thread was guns
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15928
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:40 pm
  • Being hung up on the MASS part is part of the problem, lets look at daily shootings or weekly shootings in City's that are not MASS, but a single to 3 or 4 people per incident. The numbers I think will be pretty persuasive as far as amount we don't even blink about anymore. Seattle general area meaning Seattle to Tacoma, to Everett, and all the East side it seems like it's daily, that and even Cops shooting people right or wrong and or a mistake seems to be up due to fears of gun possessions.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28617
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:33 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17052
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:56 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.

    And you call others for gaslighting. :34853_doh:
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17037
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:02 pm
  • sutz wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.

    And you call others for gaslighting. :34853_doh:


    Oh hey, look - someone who's actually having the necessary conversation. Albeit on a toe-dipping level.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17052
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:14 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    sutz wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.

    And you call others for gaslighting. :34853_doh:


    Oh hey, look - someone who's actually having the necessary conversation. Albeit on a toe-dipping level.

    Hard to discuss this issue without going political. :229031_shrug:
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17037
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:49 pm
  • Such a good topic and so far seems like a healthy debate.

    I have two teen sons who are about to be in HS and i can admit the shootings have me cautious. I dont have the solution, i am not able to determine the cause either. It is scary and I'm wanting things to get better
    Wenhawk
    .NET Owner
     
    Posts: 4180
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:38 am
    Location: Renton, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 5:43 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.


    To clarify: stricter gun laws would lead to more shootings?

    That's illogical on many levels.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15928
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:54 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.


    What bible verse is this? I kind of recognize it but haven't read the good book in years.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:01 am
  • sutz wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    sutz wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.

    And you call others for gaslighting. :34853_doh:


    Oh hey, look - someone who's actually having the necessary conversation. Albeit on a toe-dipping level.

    Hard to discuss this issue without going political. :229031_shrug:

    Already totally political but apparently the owner is going to pick and choose what political stuff he allows here and what he doesn't (like things that are in opposition to his political views?). Absolutely his right but sure seems dictatorial to me.
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22284
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:26 am
  • hawksfansinceday1 wrote:
    sutz wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    sutz wrote:And you call others for gaslighting. :34853_doh:


    Oh hey, look - someone who's actually having the necessary conversation. Albeit on a toe-dipping level.

    Hard to discuss this issue without going political. :229031_shrug:

    Already totally political but apparently the owner is going to pick and choose what political stuff he allows here and what he doesn't (like things that are in opposition to his political views?). Absolutely his right but sure seems dictatorial to me.



    So you know what my political opinions are?

    I just see a social topic that has some great perspectives.
    Wenhawk
    .NET Owner
     
    Posts: 4180
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:38 am
    Location: Renton, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:21 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.


    To clarify: stricter gun laws would lead to more shootings?

    That's illogical on many levels.


    Why? CNN has already acknowledged that stricter gun-control laws would not have stopped either of the mass shootings that took place last weekend, for there were no prior criminal histories on either. (I'm mulling over supporting red flag laws for such guys, but I haven't made up my mind).

    Even if there were, remember the Aurora shooting back in February that killed five? Existing laws should have stopped that guy from owning a firearm. He had a felony conviction from Mississippi for aggravated assault and had previously had his FOID card revoked, but Illinois' systems just didn't get those records somehow. The system failed appallingly.

    Pro-2A'ers believe that in order to stem the violence against system failings and unforeseeable shooters (like the two last weekend), you add a deterrent by arming the populace.

    Right now, because everyone knows citizens can carry, that deterrent limits the pool of mass shooters to those who are either mentally compromised or simply don't care if they live. Disarm the populace and you decrease the danger to shooters, filling the pool to include those who would commit shootings and escape justice if they could - a much larger pool. Let that sink in (no pun intended).
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17052
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:47 pm
  • You have zero idea if arning the populace serves as a deterrent. Zero...

    And loosening gun laws to allow more guns into a marketplace that already has millions too many is naivety at its highest.

    ARs and all automatic weapons need to be abolished. Finding small gaps in an already fluid and soft set of policies as a means to propagate support of guns is simply looking forvrwadons to avoid a problem.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 15928
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:34 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:47 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:That's 206's and other pro 2nd Amendment people's stance.........."my quality of life with my guns is more important than any solution or measure that might help fix the problem."


    Gaslighting.

    Our stance is that the current mass of shootings we're experiencing is far lower than what we'd be seeing with stricter gun control laws.


    To clarify: stricter gun laws would lead to more shootings?

    That's illogical on many levels.


    Why? CNN has already acknowledged that stricter gun-control laws would not have stopped either of the mass shootings that took place last weekend, for there were no prior criminal histories on either. (I'm mulling over supporting red flag laws for such guys, but I haven't made up my mind).

    Even if there were, remember the Aurora shooting back in February that killed five? Existing laws should have stopped that guy from owning a firearm. He had a felony conviction from Mississippi for aggravated assault and had previously had his FOID card revoked, but Illinois' systems just didn't get those records somehow. The system failed appallingly.

    Pro-2A'ers believe that in order to stem the violence against system failings and unforeseeable shooters (like the two last weekend), you add a deterrent by arming the populace.

    Right now, because everyone knows citizens can carry, that deterrent limits the pool of mass shooters to those who are either mentally compromised or simply don't care if they live. Disarm the populace and you decrease the danger to shooters, filling the pool to include those who would commit shootings and escape justice if they could - a much larger pool. Let that sink in (no pun intended).


    I don't really have a side in this debate. I think short of a ban on sales, coupled with a buyback program, any gun control arguement is a fairly tale. Then on the other side, I think trying to regulate and legislate crazy people, from doing crazy things is virtually impossible (not to mention intellectually dishonest by those who advocate for it). These types of tragedies are just the cost of an armed free society now. It's our reality.

    That said, the above post is just preposterous. Having more idiots with guns is not an answer.
    Last edited by pehawk on Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:03 pm
  • Has there ever been an occurrence where there was a mass killer and somebody who was carrying took him down?

    There have been a lot of mass killings, how come we are yet to hear about someone carrying that is the hero?

    My guess is that most who carry probably do what everyone else does when they hear gun shots, they run.
    Hawk-Lock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4164
    Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:29 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:33 pm
  • First who determines who is mentally unstable? That can vary from one doctor to another.

    Also that last shooting they took the guy out within what 32 seconds and he was able to do that kind of damage, I still go back to the stress of society. We have had guns the entire existence of this country and it is mostly in the last 30 years these events have become more common.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28617
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:57 pm
  • Hawk-Lock wrote:Has there ever been an occurrence where there was a mass killer and somebody who was carrying took him down?

    There have been a lot of mass killings, how come we are yet to hear about someone carrying that is the hero?

    My guess is that most who carry probably do what everyone else does when they hear gun shots, they run.



    Yes. You just don’t hear about them pushed as much because they don’t fit the narrative.

    A simple search and you will find plenty of instances.
    HawkSince87
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:02 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:09 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:Me owning, shooting and collecting has nothing to do with politics. Over the years I have voted for both parties to be President, and have chosen about the person and could really care less about their political party. I grew up in a very Military/Law Enforcement laden family where guns were part of everyday life. I had my own Ruger 10/22 at the age of 8, and my fondness for guns started from there.

    Why do I "Cling to the Second Amendment"? It's a RIGHT, not a privilege.


    It is a right, the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say anything about owning military style semi-automatic weapons that can fire 60 rounds a minute.......or own an entire arsenal like the Vegas shooter.

    No way in hell our forefathers intended this to be the bastardized way people interpret a very vague Amendment that they wrote over 200 years ago when we had no organized police force, town militias and the constant threat of natives and foreign invasion.

    Also the idea of not being able to amend an amendment is false. The Bill of Rights WAS amending our own constitution. So no, it's not something we can't change, we've created many new amendments since the Bill of Rights was passed.

    There IS a happy medium. No ones taking all your guns, all we're asking for is a common ground on sensible gun reform, closing loopholes, background checks, etc and any other thing that can slow down what's going on.

    To not have even the slightest bit of empathy or willingness to do this is IMO about as terrible as it gets.


    Remember the 2nd amendment was probably written when they were using flintlocks or mussel loaders. They had no concept of gun being able to shoot 1000's of rounds per minute.

    That's like asking those who wrote it with a Quill pEn to imagine Word and a PC.



    And yet nobody is pushing to regulate the 1st amendment even though technology has had (at a civilian level) a much larger impact on that than semi-automatic weapons have had on the 2nd amendment.
    JustTheTip
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1769
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:38 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:13 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Remember the 2nd amendment was probably written when they were using flintlocks or mussel loaders.


    What the heck would you even load a mussel into, anyway? Except for a nice Italian soup, of course! :irishdrinkers:
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 7091
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:42 pm
  • Chapow wrote:You're right. I reposted something from page 1 of this thread (that no one took issue with until now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) without vetting it. My bad. So lets go ahead and completely ignore my overall point and start over.

    I'm going to assume that you find the link you provided an acceptable source, since you provided it and quoted it to refute what I reposted. Is that fair?

    Direct quote from the link you provided:
    At the end of the day, Lankford said the data support a more cautious conclusion than Edwards tweeted.

    "Some countries almost never experience public mass shootings that result in four or more victims being killed, while in the United States, we experience them regularly," he said.

    Starting from the viewpoint that EVERY source has a bias i.e. objective journalism is a myth...PolitiFact tends to lean left and when forced to admit a fact that favors the right will mix in opinion/analysis to show 'balance'. I linked their article because it spoke directly to the methodology or lack there of.

    Chapow wrote:So, again, according to you, firearms are not the problem, mental illness is. If that is true then how do we explain the fact that we experience mass shootings "regularly" while other countries almost never experience them? Is there no mental illness in those other countries?

    I disagree with the hyperbole of we are the wild west and the rest of the 'developed' world is a crime free paradise.
    Sure countries that have restricted firearms have lower deaths by gun, but many also have higher violent crime rates of other types. As mentioned up thread homogeneous populations and strong cultural norms are undeniably a factor in low homicide rate countries.

    Even measuring by Countries is an issue, surely you see the distortion in treating the EU as 28 separate entities and the US as 1 when by population the EU is only 1.5 times larger. I'll see if I can dig the source up, but I recall an analysis a few years back that showed comparison by population density that brought the contrast down considerably.

    And yes I do think that mental health issues are different in the US. We have a unique mixture of wealth, income disparity, cultural diversity, and rapidly changing societal norms. Populations closer to a subsistence level don't have the time or leisure to develop the neurosis we seem to actively cultivate.

    Chapow wrote:Out of curiosity, what is a "2A denier"?

    A tongue in cheek spin on the climate denier label for those that pretend the 2nd Amendment isn't clearly written to guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms.
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:16 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:You have zero idea if arning the populace serves as a deterrent. Zero...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?noredirect=on

    Ignoring the tortuous logic used to award Pinocchios...pretty good comparison of the deterrent effect argument. I'd argue that this thread / discussion has been more focused to Lott's definition (public spree killers) than Everytown's which includes gang crime.

    Uncle Si wrote:ARs and all automatic weapons need to be abolished. Finding small gaps in an already fluid and soft set of policies as a means to propagate support of guns is simply looking forwardness to avoid a problem.

    You do realize that ARs are semiautomatic and relatively low caliber (in the most common variant)? Most spree killers pick them because they're sexier, not because they're deadlier.

    Image
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:37 pm
  • HawkSince87 wrote:
    Hawk-Lock wrote:Has there ever been an occurrence where there was a mass killer and somebody who was carrying took him down?

    There have been a lot of mass killings, how come we are yet to hear about someone carrying that is the hero?

    My guess is that most who carry probably do what everyone else does when they hear gun shots, they run.



    Yes. You just don’t hear about them pushed as much because they don’t fit the narrative.

    A simple search and you will find plenty of instances.

    Great example: The jackass in the Springfield MO Walmart was detained by an armed citizen. I'm a bit of a news junkie and throughout the day hear most of the major radio news services and a decent sampling of broadcasts. On the rare occasion it was even mentioned he was referred to as a first-responder or off duty firefighter. In truth he was a retired firefighter, but how is that even relevant? It sure looks like media was choosing to frame him as not your average citizen.
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:48 am
  • JustTheTip wrote:And yet nobody is pushing to regulate the 1st amendment even though technology has had (at a civilian level) a much larger impact on that than semi-automatic weapons have had on the 2nd amendment.


    The right has often threatened and discussed changing the 1st Amendment so they can sue over freedom of the press.

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/r ... -amendment

    btw, the 1st Amendment has been refined and changed through MANY court rulings and Supreme Court decisions.

    Miller vs. California in 1973 is just one example

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

    So yes, most US citizens are open to changing our Bill of Rights and Amendments when it comes to updating our laws as the times change.

    Again, love coming back after the weekend as seeing two full pages of more 2nd Amendment apologists deflecting and changing the subject because they have absolutely no logical leg to stand on over this vague and antiquated Amendment that gun nuts cling to like grim death.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15798
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:53 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:And yet nobody is pushing to regulate the 1st amendment even though technology has had (at a civilian level) a much larger impact on that than semi-automatic weapons have had on the 2nd amendment.


    The right has often threatened and discussed changing the 1st Amendment so they can sue over freedom of the press.

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/r ... -amendment

    btw, the 1st Amendment has been refined and changed through MANY court rulings and Supreme Court decisions.

    Miller vs. California in 1973 is just one example

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

    So yes, most US citizens are open to changing our Bill of Rights and Amendments when it comes to updating our laws as the times change.

    Again, love coming back after the weekend as seeing two full pages of more 2nd Amendment apologists deflecting and changing the subject because they have absolutely no logical leg to stand on over this vague and antiquated Amendment that gun nuts cling to like grim death.


    You're the one committing character assassination without even knowing what the other side is actually arguing.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17052
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:09 am
  • Osprey wrote:
    HawkSince87 wrote:
    Hawk-Lock wrote:Has there ever been an occurrence where there was a mass killer and somebody who was carrying took him down?

    There have been a lot of mass killings, how come we are yet to hear about someone carrying that is the hero?

    My guess is that most who carry probably do what everyone else does when they hear gun shots, they run.



    Yes. You just don’t hear about them pushed as much because they don’t fit the narrative.

    A simple search and you will find plenty of instances.

    Great example: The jackass in the Springfield MO Walmart was detained by an armed citizen. I'm a bit of a news junkie and throughout the day hear most of the major radio news services and a decent sampling of broadcasts. On the rare occasion it was even mentioned he was referred to as a first-responder or off duty firefighter. In truth he was a retired firefighter, but how is that even relevant? It sure looks like media was choosing to frame him as not your average citizen.



    Don't forget that most of these shootings happen in gun free zones (bars, schools, night clubs, malls). When you are a coward want to kill as many innocent people as possible, why pick a target that you might get some resistance from? They choose an easy target where they know most of the people will be in large groups and unarmed.
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:21 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:And yet nobody is pushing to regulate the 1st amendment even though technology has had (at a civilian level) a much larger impact on that than semi-automatic weapons have had on the 2nd amendment.


    The right has often threatened and discussed changing the 1st Amendment so they can sue over freedom of the press.

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/r ... -amendment

    btw, the 1st Amendment has been refined and changed through MANY court rulings and Supreme Court decisions.

    Miller vs. California in 1973 is just one example

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

    So yes, most US citizens are open to changing our Bill of Rights and Amendments when it comes to updating our laws as the times change.

    Again, love coming back after the weekend as seeing two full pages of more 2nd Amendment apologists deflecting and changing the subject because they have absolutely no logical leg to stand on over this vague and antiquated Amendment that gun nuts cling to like grim death.


    You're the one committing character assassination without even knowing what the other side is actually arguing.


    What exactly is the other side arguing? Pleas enlighten me. Cause all I've read so far on this thread is some crazy mumbo jumbo;

    - stack em high and deep no one's taking my guns
    - right to have guns in case we need to fight our government, our government that has fighter jets and tanks
    - video games
    - hey what about the 1st Amendment!

    See that's the thing, there IS no rational sane argument for not exploring ways we can make our society safer with part of that solution changing our gun laws.

    But only one side is willing to explore this, the other side is a corrupt political machine that's beholden to the NRA and gun lobby......of which is supported by an entire voter base full of stubborn gun owners that have made this issue into the runaway unfixable train that is through very calculated fear mongering.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15798
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:45 am
  • Well in Russia the States there fought against the Red army and achieved independence, they didn't have as many guns as we do, I think they had Jets and Tanks also.

    Yes it was a bloody mess.

    Many would not fire on their own people that were part of the army there from those states. I would expect the same thing here.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28617
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:04 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:And yet nobody is pushing to regulate the 1st amendment even though technology has had (at a civilian level) a much larger impact on that than semi-automatic weapons have had on the 2nd amendment.


    The right has often threatened and discussed changing the 1st Amendment so they can sue over freedom of the press.

    https://theweek.com/speedreads/695695/r ... -amendment

    btw, the 1st Amendment has been refined and changed through MANY court rulings and Supreme Court decisions.

    Miller vs. California in 1973 is just one example

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

    So yes, most US citizens are open to changing our Bill of Rights and Amendments when it comes to updating our laws as the times change.

    Again, love coming back after the weekend as seeing two full pages of more 2nd Amendment apologists deflecting and changing the subject because they have absolutely no logical leg to stand on over this vague and antiquated Amendment that gun nuts cling to like grim death.


    You're the one committing character assassination without even knowing what the other side is actually arguing.


    What exactly is the other side arguing? Pleas enlighten me. Cause all I've read so far on this thread is some crazy mumbo jumbo;

    - stack em high and deep no one's taking my guns
    - right to have guns in case we need to fight our government, our government that has fighter jets and tanks
    - video games
    - hey what about the 1st Amendment!

    See that's the thing, there IS no rational sane argument for not exploring ways we can make our society safer with part of that solution changing our gun laws.

    But only one side is willing to explore this, the other side is a corrupt political machine that's beholden to the NRA and gun lobby......of which is supported by an entire voter base full of stubborn gun owners that have made this issue into the runaway unfixable train that is through very calculated fear mongering.



    Hahahaha. You say the other side (right) is corrupt. Like the left isn’t. Hilarious stuff.
    HawkSince87
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 52
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:02 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:12 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    What exactly is the other side arguing? Pleas enlighten me. Cause all I've read so far on this thread is some crazy mumbo jumbo;

    - stack em high and deep no one's taking my guns
    - right to have guns in case we need to fight our government, our government that has fighter jets and tanks
    - video games
    - hey what about the 1st Amendment!

    I'm beginning to think you're just trolling given that you don't respond to attempts to engage on specifics and instead toss the ad hominems.

    Sgt. Largent wrote:See that's the thing, there IS no rational sane argument for not exploring ways we can make our society safer with part of that solution changing our gun laws.But only one side is willing to explore this, the other side is a corrupt political machine that's beholden to the NRA and gun lobby......of which is supported by an entire voter base full of stubborn gun owners that have made this issue into the runaway unfixable train that is through very calculated fear mongering.

    I've seen multiple ideas from pro 2Aers, you chose to ignore them. Instead you act as if firearms are completely unregulated, repeat extremely dubious stats, and conflate classes of firearms.

    We already have hundreds of Federal gun laws and tens of thousands of State/Local regulations. Ever filled out a 4473? Aware that in many states I could be prosecuted for storing a hunting rifle at my brother in law's without running him through a background check and completing a transfer form?

    I think many are at the same place as me in that we feel we've compromised continually with no effect other than to increase the burden on ownership. At this point Time Place and Manner restrictions have been maxed out and the only argument remaining is repeal 2A or don't.

    If you want to have that debate, glad to, but don't conflate it with regulation fairy tales.
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:15 am
  • I just can't get behind any solution that punishes people who haven't done anything wrong. It's like nuking an entire country to smithereens because there are some terrorists hiding out there. We shouldn't operate with that kind of logic.
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5236
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:47 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:46 am
  • What about requiring liability insurance for all gun ownership and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers?
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:57 am
  • I bought a used Saiga 12 gauge on Armslist.com from a private seller a few weeks ago. We met at a local shop on 7.24, paid the transfer fee plus the new state tax, filled out paperwork, ran it through the ATF/NCIS, and with the new I1639 law that passed on 7.1.19 I had to wait a 10 business day period which was expected. For those who think that guns easily available and that everyone can get them, well you are indeed wrong.

    Gun laws that in in place now are MUCH tougher than they were even 5 years ago. Sure things need to be added and tweaked, nobody is arguing that, but steps indeed have been put into place along the way. I remember as a kid going to an estate sale and seeing the owner of the house selling rifles and handguns right out of his living room with no paperwork.
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:59 am
  • pehawk wrote:What about requiring liability insurance for all gun ownership and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers?


    Allowing lawsuits for gun manufacturers? How would that solve anything?

    So by that logic, should Ryder truck be held liable for a law suit the next time someone rents a truck and blows it up killing people, or runs down people on a sidewalk?

    Maybe Budweiser should be held responsible for someone who drinks too much and kills a family on a highway.

    The slope is a slippery one.
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:22 am
  • pehawk wrote:What about requiring liability insurance for all gun ownership and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers?

    To what end?

    Are there lawful gun owners with outstanding liability claims? That's the only purpose of insurance. Criminals are not going to be concerned with carrying insurance and policy issuers are not going to pay on criminal acts anyway.

    Gun manufactures can be sued the same as any other manufacturer when they have committed negligent acts. The strict liability laws that have been passed are to protect them from frivolous harassment lawsuits.

    Nothing but a strategy to drive down gun ownership by increasing the direct cost and limiting supply (also driving cost). Be honest and advocate 2A repeal instead of backdoor BS like this.
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:26 am
  • Pretty simple. Just like owning a vehicle all guns have to be insured. Not sure what the issue would be?

    And gun manufacturers can't be sued the same as everyone else. They have a few freebies they get.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:36 am
  • peachesenregalia wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    pehawk wrote:What about requiring liability insurance for all gun ownership and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers?


    Allowing lawsuits for gun manufacturers? How would that solve anything?

    So by that logic, should Ryder truck be held liable for a law suit the next time someone rents a truck and blows it up killing people, or runs down people on a sidewalk?

    Maybe Budweiser should be held responsible for someone who drinks too much and kills a family on a highway.

    The slope is a slippery one.

    Wow, racist.



    Just like those who are Anti 2A, you only see and believe what you want to.


    slope.

    1.a surface of which one end or side is at a higher level than another; a rising or falling surface.

    "he slithered helplessly down the slope"
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:37 am
  • I do love the argument that you shouldn't bother with laws because criminals wont follow them. Using that logic we shouldn't have any laws. Rapists still r@p*, even though its illegal, so why bother?
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:41 am
  • And to 2_0_6, I have no 2nd amendment agenda. I already stated slaughtered toddlers is just the sad reality of our current society. This thread kind of proves that.

    I'm merely throwing out ideas, Sweetie.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:57 am
  • pehawk wrote:And to 2_0_6, I have no 2nd amendment agenda. I already stated slaughtered toddlers is just the sad reality of our current society. This thread kind of proves that.

    I'm merely throwing out ideas, Sweetie.



    You might not directly, but some on this thread absolutely do and resort to name calling and wild assumptions.
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:58 am
  • 2_0_6 wrote:
    pehawk wrote:And to 2_0_6, I have no 2nd amendment agenda. I already stated slaughtered toddlers is just the sad reality of our current society. This thread kind of proves that.

    I'm merely throwing out ideas, Sweetie.



    You might not directly, but some on this thread absolutely do and resort to name calling and wild assumptions.


    I did call people names. too But only because I think both sides are a*hole. Genuinely.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:06 pm
  • pehawk wrote:
    2_0_6 wrote:
    pehawk wrote:And to 2_0_6, I have no 2nd amendment agenda. I already stated slaughtered toddlers is just the sad reality of our current society. This thread kind of proves that.

    I'm merely throwing out ideas, Sweetie.



    You might not directly, but some on this thread absolutely do and resort to name calling and wild assumptions.


    I did call people names. too But only because I think both sides are a*hole. Genuinely.


    I get it. What I don't get is the "hey you don't agree with my view, so your an idiot, you must like hearing about kids dying you selfish ass" crowd.
    2_0_6
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3257
    Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:40 am
    Location: South Seattle


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:23 pm
  • pehawk wrote:Pretty simple. Just like owning a vehicle all guns have to be insured. Not sure what the issue would be?

    And gun manufacturers can't be sued the same as everyone else. They have a few freebies they get.


    Use of vehicles create liability due to 6 million accidents a year. How many claims do you think firearms would generate annually?

    Other than strict liability i.e. no 3rd party carry over, what benefits do gun manufactures have?
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:28 pm
  • pehawk wrote:I did call people names. too But only because I think both sides are a*hole. Genuinely.


    If you run into an @$$h0le in the morning, you ran into an @$$h0le. If you run into a*hole all day, you're the @$$h0le.
    Raylan Givens
    Osprey
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 846
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:06 pm
    Location: Camas, WA


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:54 pm
  • Osprey wrote:
    pehawk wrote:Pretty simple. Just like owning a vehicle all guns have to be insured. Not sure what the issue would be?

    And gun manufacturers can't be sued the same as everyone else. They have a few freebies they get.


    Use of vehicles create liability due to 6 million accidents a year. How many claims do you think firearms would generate annually?

    Other than strict liability i.e. no 3rd party carry over, what benefits do gun manufactures have?


    Not sure.

    But if an irresponsible owners gun was stolen, then said gun was used to mow down a Wal-Mart, having his insurance company be liable would certainly incentivise responsible ownership. It'd certainly drive more responsibility. The insurance companies capitalistic instincts would kick in.

    Oh, and I'm not an @$$h0le. I'm a self-important douchebag.
    Last edited by pehawk on Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


Re: Mass Shootings
Mon Aug 12, 2019 12:55 pm
  • Osprey wrote:
    pehawk wrote:I did call people names. too But only because I think both sides are a*hole. Genuinely.


    If you run into an @$$h0le in the morning, you ran into an @$$h0le. If you run into a*hole all day, you're the @$$h0le.
    Raylan Givens


    Put this in the new Seahawks.net motto thread.
    pehawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 14929
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:08 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:21 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE .NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online