Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Steve Scalise Among 5 Shot at Baseball Field (nytimes.com)
From a New York Times report: A lone gunman opened fire on Republican members of the congressional baseball team at a practice field in a Washington suburb Wednesday, using a rifle to shower the field with bullets that struck five people, including Steve Scalise, the majority whip of the House of Representatives. Two members of Mr. Scalise's protective police detail were wounded as they exchanged gunfire with the shooter in what other lawmakers described as a chaotic, terror-filled ten minutes that turned the baseball practice into an early-morning nightmare. Police said a total of five people were shot, two critically. Standing at second base, Mr. Scalise was struck, in the hip, according to witnesses, and collapsed as the shots rang out, one after another, from behind a chain-link fence near the third-base dugout. Witnesses said Mr. Scalise, of Louisiana, "army crawled" his way toward taller grass as the shooting continued. Alternative source: NBC News, CNN, BBC, NPR, WashingtonPost, and WSJ.
Update: 06/14 15:40 GMT: In remarks at the White House, President Trump said the Alexandria shooting suspect has died from injuries.
Update: 06/14 15:40 GMT: In remarks at the White House, President Trump said the Alexandria shooting suspect has died from injuries.
Thoughts and prayers out to the victims and their families. Speedy recovery for the injured.
Gun Free Zones work!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's a good point. Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
We need to ban cars and trucks instead, a lot more people die in car accidents.
#DeleteFacebook
Clearly the only sane solution is to allow only Conservative Republicans own guns.
>50-100 shots
>only hit 5 people
more than likely.
Absolutely! This is proof that everybody should have a gun so they can defend themselves!
#DeleteFacebook
Nope. Any gun control law that is strong enough to be effective would run a foul of the 2nd amendment. And the 2nd amendment is never going to go away as long as the US stands as a country.
This is getting out of hand... WAY out of hand. The specific targeting of the right needs to end. I'm not talking about the nut jobs with guns, but those who engage in irresponsible verbal targeting that encourage the nut jobs with guns and provide them targeting.
Come on folks, all this hateful rhetoric needs to come to a full and final stop. Those on the other side of the isle are NOT (in general) trying to do harm to others or the country and it's way past time we stop trying to claim they are. Attach the principles, argue about what the country should do, discuss the issues, but leave the personal attacks and outlandish claims alone.
This shooting illustrates just one of the reasons why this is important..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Soap box, ballot box, ammo box. There's nothing happening in the USA right now that can't be fixed by judicious use of the second after some campaigning with the first.
I am curious as to the shooter's personal politics and motivations. Hopefully they're more nuanced than "He's just nuts", because random violence is less predictable and thus less preventable and more frightening than predictable violence.
Go back to FauxNoise. There's no place for that here.
Early reports say he first walked up to there, unarmed asking "Hey, are these republicans or democrats?"...
Apparently once he found out they were republicans, he came back armed and shooting.
What's the deal with this? It seems as if there is a Left Leaning Fascist group growing out there...using all methods including violence to shut down and shout down anyone that isn't in perfect lockstep with their groupthink of what the world has to be.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We could just cut out the middleman and declare murder illegal. I'm shocked it hasn't been suggested before now actually.
Indeed. Having to own this is sad, but yes he was a hate filled Bernie Supporter. Now that I have apologized for that, will the GOP all of the violent acts committed by their party?
Place something witty here
This is what you get when you engage in hate campaigns. Is it what you wanted? If not, then find something to believe in besides hating people. Find something to talk about besides how much you hate [whomever] and how much your hate is justified because [reasons].
Why is that awkward?
Like many, he supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Like many, he does not support the right of your random person to go out and shoot people they don't like.
Supporting the first, does not mean support of the second.
Which one of those confuses you?
Social media posts from the shooter confirms he was a leftist trump hater.
Exactly. A Left-Wing wacko purposely hunts down Republicans and the answer is "abolish guns."
I used to decry the statement "leftism is a mental disorder" but you know what? Maybe there is something there.
A person hunts down people who disagrees with (whether it's Republicans or Democrats, Christians or Muslims, Gays or Straights, Men or Women) your outrage ought to be at the person and those who promote such cause (Trump being killed and beheaded) as opposed to the availability of an inanimate object.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Sadly, there's a contingent of people that are absolutely certain that every single white male in America is a Nazi, along with white females (who have been declared the enemy of feminism) and a lot of others of other races simply for not supporting their intersectional identity politics (or simply being on the wrong side of the line whenever a new "intersection" is drawn. I hear that there's a movement to declare that married gay people are "privileged" and therefore the enemy now too).
Having decided that these people are Nazis, they think they're entitled to attack and/or kill them because gold tassels on the flag means world war 2 never ended or some bullshit like that.
"Libtard"? Hey kid, do your parents know you're on the Internet?
I don't respond to AC's.
Somehow, the US has more mass shootings than any other country on the planet. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
I don't respond to AC's.
It didn't happen when Regan was shot by a crazy guy, I wouldn't count on it happening now.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
What's the deal with this?
The deal is that people with mental issues, sociopaths, and old-fashioned assholes exist in nearly every group regardless of political position. Many of them only get influence by being very loud. Others are only have influence because they make for easy strawmen for lazy members of an opposing group, so they get held up as an example despite not being representative at all.
That's a great prepared talking point.
It's not really true considering Paris has has bigger mass shootings in the last 2 years than have ever happened in the U.S. but go ahead and repost what you were told to write.
The bigger issue here is: Every single mass shooting with a high death toll in U.S. history has exactly one thing in common: It happened in a liberal-enforced "gun free zone".
What happened today is tragic, but the fact that there isn't a huge body count piling up has nothing to do with a feel-good-but-do-nothing gun control law and everything to do with the fact that the baseball diamond was not a gun free zone.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
> .using all methods including violence
and downvotes.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal."
Murder is illegal. Though it does not stop all murders. By your argument, we should make it perfectly legal. After all, murders are still happening at an alarming rate. If making murder illegal is not stopping murders, then what is the point?
In any form of recent years...what incidents are you speaking of?!?!
I don't know of any people going out trying to kill a mass of people in the name of Christ...please, enumerate them.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The shooter hasn't even been identified yet, jackass.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
It won't be awkward for him, I'm sure. People don't understand what hypocrisy is any more, by and large.
I don't respond to AC's.
He learned it from the President.
I don't respond to AC's.
No muthafuka. How stupid can you be?
I hope you're trolling and not this mentally f**ked up.
A person kills people he disagrees with and you're so f**king stupid as to talk about further restricting guns?
The laws don't prevent this anymore than they prevent prostitution or drugs.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
You need more than a few of these to start a major riot though. So they are no longer an "insignificant but vocal minority" - they are a large, influential group.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
We don't know that this was a libtard. I would not be surprised if it was a tea-tard that is angry that the Republicans are not extreme enough.
Own it.
Clearly, antifa tactics are moving to a new level.
But For the sake of the environment, Hodgkinson did use steel ammunition, rather than lead.
then why is it anytime legislation is proposed that help prevent guns getting into the hands of people who would do something like this, specifically waiting periods to do background checks, the Congressmembers on the NRA payroll block it?
Early reports are wrong. It was not the shooter who asked if the players were Republican or Democrats.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The thing is...this isn't just an isolated nut job here and there acting alone. Just look at the large, violent mobs in past year or so at college universities trying to extinguish any speakers or thoughts that are not in lockstep with their hive mind....mobs of people beating people, destroying property, shouting down any opinions differing from theirs and suppression anyone they see as different.
You saw this for days in the streets after Trump won...
Peaceful protest is one thing, I'm all for it..but this is mob rule violence and destruction trying to intimidate and suppress thought.
It sounds vaguely familiar to groups doing the same things just before WW2.
It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
t's not really true considering Paris has has bigger mass shootings in the last 2 years than have ever happened in the U.S.
That's a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Every single mass shooting with a high death toll in U.S. history has exactly one thing in common: It happened in a liberal-enforced "gun free zone".
Also a lie.
Every single mass shooting with a high death toll in U.S. history has exactly one thing in common: It happened in a liberal-enforced "gun free zone".
Stop lying, asshole.
I don't respond to AC's.
Doctors
Not a thing of the left, gun ownership is a right wing cause.
Tell that to Gabrielle Giford, of Jo Cox in the UK, both shot by right wing nutjobs.
Then there is multiple killer Anders Breshvik, another far right nut job.
Luckily, civillised countries control guns properly, and dont end up with 5 year old girls killing their insructors with machine guns. At least it thins the herd.
What we do know though... is that a couple of good guys with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun.
No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference. If there stronger gun control, the bad guy might not have had a gun but those police still would have. Of course, it will be spun exactly as you did in order to fight gun control. And I say this as a person who owns multiple firearms, including one that would be classified as an "assault weapon". We do need more gun control, even if it is nothing more than a mandatory, government funded and provided class before you can get a permit that covers gun safety, gun laws, and basic handling/marksmanship.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
False equivalence. Mere existence or possession of a thing such as this does not in and of itself cause harm to others. In fact, the right to harmlessly possess items is a human right. Murder is the ultimate infringement of another's rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting
Definitely a righty.
What violent acts by the GOP in any form of recent history?
Even the Tea Party high levels of activity, were quite peaceful at rallies....
I seem to remember a recently elected Congressman from the Midwest pleading guilty to bodyslamming a reporter. Or by "recent" do you mean only within the last few days?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
That's a good point. Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal.
Mass murder is harder without ready access to firearms. You have to steal a truck and plow it into a vulnerable crowd or turn a pressure cooker into improvised bomb and plant it in a crowded place. This requires some degree of planning, eliminating impulsive 'going postal' actions.
It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.
Ah, but which one is more fashionable? I mean, look at the Nazis, best looking uniforms ever, they were definitely gay.
When I read and post on these forums, I am disparaged for being conservative. I am called ignorant, racist, and violent...because I disagree with the Bay Area take on tax policy and the way to achieve human dignity. But yet again, here we are with yet another news story where someone from the left is using violence to silence others.
At some point, don't you guys have to look in the mirror and notice there is something wrong with you? ALL these shootings, all violent political protest are coming from your ideology. How quickly you forget shootings like Senator Gabby Giffords came from a leftist. You claim tolerance, but in actuality practice none. Do you not think that those "cute" photos showing the beheading of Trump have an effect on society? Do you not see how all this talk of people who disagree with you as evil, inhuman, and beneath contempt doesn't translate to this?
In these forums, the stench of this ignorance runs rampant. If you post any hate few spew about the president, a republican, or a conservative, it will be modded up. The more dehumanizing, the higher the mod. None of these posts are ever backed with links, or logical arguments. It is enough to hate.
And when the hate is expressed in the inevitable outcome of murder, you will pretend you had nothing to do with it. Instead of preaching calm or making reasoned arguments, you will conveniently forget how you fed the hate machine. The blood of these killings in partly on your hands, and my guess is that most of you are too chicken shit to look in the mirror and ask why is my so called ideology of peace and tolerance producing so much violence?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Places like Chicago which already have extreme restrictive gun laws account for a majority of gun murders in the US. A vast majority of America is actually quite safe and the numbers are like any other developed country if you remove Liberal controlled large cities with restrictive gun laws.
Funny how that works.
It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.
Right, the National Socialist Worker's Party that instituted free education, free healthcare, massive public works projects, nationalized entire industries, that was totally right-wing. All you have to do is take Bernie Sanders' screeds and replace "the 1%" with "the Jews" and he sounds just like Hitler. It's still the same shit: you've got stuff, we want it, and we're going to bust your heads open in the street to get it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
He learned it from the El Presidente.
FTFY.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Then there is the physical reality: There are roughly 300 million guns in private ownership in this country. No new law or court case can wave a magic wand and make those disappear. So what are you doing to do? Go house to house, kicking in doors?
"never" is a long time. But "as long as the US stands a country" may not be so very long. This country is rapid deteriorating along irreconcilable lines. I fully expect that the US will politically collapse long before there a chance to pass meaningful gun control.
but we push for an $500M+ underground gov only baseball field with lot's of armed guards
Every mass shooting starts a gun control debate. There's a checklist around here somewhere... Let me see if I've got this right:
"Here we have a typical example of a responsible gun owner."
"Now is not the time to discuss gun control, we need to wait until people forget about this."
"Why has no one declared this to be an act of terrorism yet?"
"This is obviously some deeply disturbed person with a history of mental health problems."
"This is why gun free zones don't work."
"This is why gun free zones aren't big enough."
It goes on. People are treating this particular mass shooting like it's different from all the other mass shootings because I guess it's more obviously political, since there are politicians involved, but these are always politically motivated.
The Second Amendment isn't a Constitutional Right?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Huh - well, if we outlaw cars, we can put an end to car accidents. You might be on to something here! This is revolutionary!
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Peaceful protest is one thing, I'm all for it..but this is mob rule violence and destruction trying to intimidate and suppress thought.
Is it though? Do you have any links for this because the source matters. It's not uncommon for news outlets with a particular... viewpoint... deliberately focus on some minority to discredit the rest. Sometimes it's for their own nefarious purpose... sometimes it's just because that's a more interesting story than "vast majority of protesters act peaceably".
It sounds vaguely familiar to groups doing the same things just before WW2.
It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.
Well that escalated quickly.
Amen.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Frazier Glenn Miller Jr.
Robert Lewis Dear
Anders Behring Breivik
Scott Roeder
Wade Michael Page
Just a few names, and hardly exhaustive, I didn't list all of the people who have committed violence against mosques, synagogues and other places in the name of Christ.
Tell me this guy doesn't throw his hat in with the conservatives.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-train-stabbing-suspect-thats-what-liberalism-gets-you-docs/
Well, just outlaw trucks and pressure cookers. Problem solved!
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
While I don't enjoy envoking godwin, promoting gun control only for your political opponents feels a lot like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here's my counter proposal:
1) Let's respect the 2nd amendment for all of our law-abiding citizens.
2) Let's avoid demonizing political opponents based on the actions of a single individual.
3) Let's try to understand the motivations of the killer.
4) Let's try to think rationally about our policy as a country rather than having knee-jerk reactions based on fear.
Last week in London, a person much like yourself, decided he can't tolerate any difference of opinion. He drove a car into a crowd of people killing several. Like you, he could not tolerate someone having a difference of opinion, and advocated violence against those who disagree.
The thing is, my stupid friend, is that he did not need a gun to silence others. The problem is not guns, but terrible people like yourself who think it is cool, or funny, or righteous to murder those with different opinions.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
I know you are being sarcastic. But according to what I've read, firearm murders by Democrats outnumber those from Republicans 2 to 1.
What do you read? Seriously - do you have a source for that? Preferably not Alex Jones or Breitbart...
Stephan
http://www.newsweek.com/homegr...
https://www.adl.org/news/press...
You are welcome on my lawn.
You should read more of the history of the right of guns in the US. It is a very rich and interesting history examples of regular people defending themselves from violent mobs, complicit governments, and violent governments. Taken the history, it is hard to see why anyone would want to restrict that right that has been used to uplift and free so many people from tyranny and oppression.
I bet he was shooting it sideways like in the movies.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Early reports say he first walked up to there, unarmed asking "Hey, are these republicans or democrats?"...
That quote is waay to politically charged to go uncited. So here it is: Rep. Ron DeSantis said he was asked, “Are those Republicans or Democrats out there practicing?”
People read comments like yours and think:
I should go out and buy a gun right now, to protect against evil people like this commenter. If I don't, what will protect me? A shared sense of civility and humanity? Clearly not. These people don't value anything like that.
then why is it anytime legislation is proposed that help prevent guns getting into the hands of people who would do something like this, specifically waiting periods to do background checks, the Congressmembers on the NRA payroll block it?
Because it's a lie.
If you buy a gun from a dealer, there is always a background check. At a store, a gun show, anywhere.
"Universal Background Check" means checks on private transfers. To enforce it requires registration. And that's what we oppose. Democrats talk about the "Gunshow Loophole" like there's some kind of free-for-all at shows, which is an outright lie. They want registration.
By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed. The liberal media likes to use this term incite hysteria.
I am sure Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other host of unstable countries of a particular religion have more mass shootings then we do. Convenient how the liberal media overlooks this. And don't forget the like for suicide bombers and car bombs too.
I'm an atheist, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization libertarian and I am yelled at as a fascist here in deep-blue Brooklyn. It's the left going off the rails.
I'm also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment. As far as accidents happening (your last point) guns are dangerous. Duh. But so are other sports - skiing, scuba diving, rock climbing, surfing, spelunking. I don't hear people say that we should ban skiing because it's dangerous.
www.denverpost.com/2017/.../skier-fatalities-myths-who-dies-skiing-where-debunked... Jan 12, 2017 - The average person who died on the slopes of U.S. ski resorts during the ... according to the National Ski Area Association's annual report on safety. ... Colorado averages 11 deaths on its slopes each year according to ...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Why don't you just go to one of the countries that already has the gun control you so crave? Progressive Americans could go anywhere in the 1st world if they really wanted to live in a society with those policies. Many of them even speak English primarily or entirely! By contrast, conservatives can go nowhere else.
Why not? It's only that most of the countries with "conservative" laws are 3rd world hell-holes. Maybe there is a relationship there?
Stephan
It has been over 30 years since the US of A graduated to Idiocracy status. This is nothing new, it's just becoming more visible for all to see that's all.
He was also white, male, over 60, and plenty of other things. Probably a Christian too based purely on the significant probability that is true. So considering I'm a white male liberal, in your eyes I need to own that white people, males, and liberals are capable of hateful violence. Sure, I can own that. Anything else?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
You, sir, actually made my lips twitch, briefly, while wading through the morass of shit from the extreme sides of the aisle above (both of them). I momentarily regretted not having mod points. Then my customary level of doom, despair, and depression reasserted itself leaving me ready to close the browser window and return to normal life outside of the /. polirantfest, one where indeed it would be simply lovely to declare murder illegal and decriminalize suicide.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Maybe Bernie supporters will arm themselves to protect themselves from people like you
Maybe it was just another person with a mental health problem and access to firearms? Or are politics the only cause of mass shootings these days?
Log in or piss off.
look into berkeley riots for one
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
We do not need better gun control, unless you define gun control as proper implementation of the laws which currently exist.
The general solution that seems to come up after every shooting incident is "let's make another law".
I'm guessing that once the dust settles on this, this guy probably wasn't legally allowed to own the weapon.
I personally would love the idea of needing to show proof of a mandated class to own a weapon, provided they're free/cheap and easily available.
Gun laws don't magically make people stop wanting to murder people. But they do make it more difficult to get such an effective weapon for such purposes. Granted, there are way too many guns out there, which is a separate problem that also needs to be solved. Perhaps a gun buy-back program like Australia had.
Yep, this will work. It has worked wonders in Juarez, Mexico across the boarder from El Paso, TX. It was at one time the murder capital of the world. It has been in the top 10 murder capitals of the world for years. All of Mexico is a "Gun Free Zone" (except when the "Fast And Furious" wanted to change that.)
He's generally right: they often occur in "gun free zones". Perhaps not all, but the majority.
You do know that Slashdot is and always HAS been a US centric website, right?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yes, constitutional amendments can never be changed. That's why we still have prohibition. (see 18th amendment)
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
News reports as I write, on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, are quoting two congressmen saying both are sure the person they spoke to and asked whether democrats or republicans were playing, is the person whose photo is appearing on the news broadcasts. How are the early reports wrong?
Well, here's a couple in the past decade:
https://prochoice.org/educatio...
Not saying that this nutcase/domestic terrorist should be excused because of what previous nutcase/domestic terrorists have done.
I don't know of any people going out trying to kill a mass of people in the name of Christ...please, enumerate them.
For a start.... And rather recently this event.
Stephan
That won't be possible. Because they will be killed by someone concealed carrying before it can become "mass".
Anti-gun folks always, ALWAYS, forget that given the chance many second amendment advocates would carry guns for their (and their fellow citizens) protection around with them all the time.... And it DOES make a huge difference in being able to defend against an attack.
Gun control or even outright banning guns still won't solve the problem. Criminals have always had easier access to guns than law abiding folk.
Of course it won't completely solve the problem. But reasonable gun control would solve enough of the problem to be worth it. My suggestion would reduce firearm accidents, reduce availability of firearms to criminals (by teaching proper storage) and provide a reasonable but not onerous barrier to entry for firearm possession. Combine that with proper and adequate mental health treatment and diagnosis in this country and a lot of shootings go away. But the NRA has made sure that it is practically impossible to start and discussion on reasonable gun control because they inevitably take any mention of gun control to the extreme "they want to take away all our guns" argument.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Jared Laughner shot a democratic congresswoman in the face. There have been numerous shootings and bombings at abortion clinics, at least 5 major incidents. Some of these are attributed to the Army of God, which also bombed some gay night clubs. The bombing of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics was carried out by Eric Rudolph who wanted to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." There's the Phineas Priesthood responsible for plotting and sometimes succeeding in blowing up gay night clubs, FBI buildings, abortion clinics, etc. Let's not forget the unabomber's reign of terror. Let's not forget the Oklahoma City bombing. Or the Charleston Church shooting. Or the Sihk temple shooting.
Of course I understand that a few nutcases with right leaning ideology doesn't mean all of those with right leaning ideology are unable to differentiate right from wrong. Surely you know that not everybody on the left is about to start taking pot shots at those on the right, don't you?
Well a mass murderer with a knife is a lot less scary than one with a gun. Worst case you can run away across the baseball field.
Please cite the US Mass shooting with more than 130 dead. You can't, the 49 at the club in Orlando a year ago is the US record.
The GP said mass shooting not terrorist attacks. Thanks to 9/11 nobody comes close to the US, but this is mass shooting events, terrorist or otherwise.
Otherwise you are right, prior to today there have been two mass shootings in the US in the last 50 years that were not in gun-free zones. This is the third.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Well, just outlaw trucks and pressure cookers. Problem solved!
NO, stop the strawmen... Banning something will hinder society to some degree if the reason to ban it is not it's primary function (e.g encryption, transportation, paper, pressure cookers). A gun's primary purpose is to kill, thus banning it will only hinder killing people.
Q1: Do we ever really want an individual citizen to have the power to very easily kill many people arbitrarily without trial? Unless you are living in the world of mad max then this is something you should be moving away from for any forward thinking society.
Q2: does it work? in the UK it's extremely difficult to get guns, result: murderous people have to resort to knives and cars and improvised weapons... this is much better than being able to pick up a semiauto and pepper hundreds of people with bullets at the drop of a hat.
You should read more of the history of the right of guns in the US. It is a very rich and interesting history examples of regular people defending themselves from violent mobs, complicit governments, and violent governments. Taken the history, it is hard to see why anyone would want to restrict that right that has been used to uplift and free so many people from tyranny and oppression.
It is also full of examples where citizens have abused that right to oppress their fellow citizens.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This must be what is meant by American "exceptionalism".
It doesn't take a truck to ram into a crowd at speed. The surprising thing is how seldom this is used. Mass murder is also easier with explosives which can be manufactured at home, pressure cookers are one method, with a little planning a Ryder rental truck was used to kill 168 people 22 years ago. Far more effective than any firearm attack.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Because it was totally the free education, free healthcare, massive public works projects, and nationalized entire industries that people complain about when they complain about the Nazis, not the mass-murder, facism, and persecution of minorities.
The shooter didn't vocalize his complaints, so we resort to "left-wing wacko". What if he wasn't? Would we have the same reaction if he was an average guy that thought he had no other options?
The interesting part is its typically Republicans that are pro-2nd Amendment. Now they have been hit (no pun intended) closer to home. I guess we will see if the gun control tune of Republicans moves left a bit.
What? No, of course not - it's an amendment. It enumerates some rights, but what those rights are has changed as the interpretation of the amendment has changed.
I can't wait for the bullshit liberals will use to spin this asshole liberal wanker trying to assassinate Republicans. And yes, it's an assassination attempt, brought on by this inflammatory, hateful, spiteful, whiny ass liberal rhetoric. Somehow, this will all be Trump's fault. As if him winning caused the downfall of all America. It's this kind of benighted, morally bankrupt, anti-patriotism we've come to see in Democrats. They are nothing but small-minded, uneducated, selfish children who probably should have been aborted trying to be 'activists' yet not knowing how to tie their shoes.
Mark my words, this will continue to happen UNTIL a Republican is assassinated, then the sane part of America will rise up and end the threat forever. I don't think these morons understand that the tolerance level of the normal people in America is very quickly reaching the boiling point with these psychotic psuedo-terrorists.
Pax Vobiscum
And then he tried to shoot himself to finish it off, but missed.
But according to what I've read, firearm murders by Democrats outnumber those from Republicans 2 to 1.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A quick google leads me to calculations based on the race of murderers and statistical racial party affiliation, this seems dubious at best. I seriously doubt there are reliable statistics of party affiliation among murderers (unless possibly if the murder is hate crime related).
2. Was a skinhead, tied to KKK group. KKK founded by Democrats to destroy Republican reconstruction efforts in the south. KKK = Democrats. 3. Dylan Roof prop of choice was Confederate flag. History lesson: Confederate flag = Democrats. Northern states (the Union) led by Republicans.
Mid 1800s Democrats=modern day Republicans in terms of political leanings. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed.
So if the people shot end up dying from the wounds then it is a mass shooting, but if they survive it's not?
That sounds a flakey definition. Surely a mass shooting should be based on how many people get hit, not how many people get killed.
If 100 people get shot but only one died it wouldn't be a mass shooting by that definition.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It's not what people complain about. It's whether his policies were left or right wing.
You don't get sarcasm, do you? I was using humor to make a point, as my proposal would clearly (very clearly) never actually work in real life. I swear the critical reading skill have left this site (mods, I'm looking at you).
I'm all for #1 unless we start to get squishy on what law-abiding means. It would be disrespectful of the 2nd amendment to say that anyone with a blemish on their record (e.g. a parking ticket, you filthy lawbreaker) is banned from gun ownership.
Regarding #4, I would love to have a rational discussion about gun control policy, but the left has literally made that impossible. That's why we have to resort to hyperbole and sarcasm. But I can guarantee you this is what's going to happen: the left will totally disregard the fact that they made this man who he is if this was indeed politically motivated, but they will be howl for far stricter gun control no matter what you say about points #2 and #3 in your post. They might as well start a conspiracy where they send believers out to shoot up the public so they can force their policy onto the country
Even if you manage to shove through an amendment, do you really think that 100 million gun owners are doing to peacefully and voluntarily surrender their arms? The only comparable historical antecedent is slavery. And that required a civil war to abolish. The US would not survive a modern civil war.
You seem to be talk about gun ownership rather than about rights. Yes those things are related, but it's not the same discussion.
Well, just outlaw trucks and pressure cookers. Problem solved!
Guns are much more efficient killing machines. Trucks require a license to be able to rent, and can't easily be reused. Chances of getting away close to 0. With a gun, you can shoot from a distance and the potential to escape is there.
Pressure cookers require some know-how and some sort of explosive device within them. There haven't been many pressure-cooker attacks because the average Joe on the street can't pull it off.
Guns are a much more cowardly way to pull off an attack. Any joker can pick one up cheap. Doesn't require any knowhow. Extremely low chance of accidentally detonating it on yourself setting it up. Can attack from a distance.
Driving a truck into a crowd or mixing explosives up require a small modicum of nerves. Shooting someone from a distance is an easy cowardly way to kill people.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
when did police stop being people??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
no its not, see truck attacks in NYC and europe
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Except that in the South Republicans and Democrats literally switched parties.
In the 19th Century, the Democrats were all about States Rights and Jesus and the KKK and the Republicans were carpetbagging scum come down from Yankee-land to stir things up with the colored folk and their high-and-mighty Washington Rule.
In the 21sh Century, it's the Republicans who want States Rights and Christian Sharia and to keep the brown people in their place and the Democrats who want Washington Rule.
Weasel.
I know you are being sarcastic. But according to what I've read, firearm murders by Democrats outnumber those from Republicans 2 to 1.
What do you read? Seriously - do you have a source for that? Preferably not Alex Jones or Breitbart...
I suspect it's probably true. Correlation not causation. I'm sure there is a race/economic factor involved. The poor have higher gun crime numbers. The poor are much likely to vote democrat.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
the Supreme Court will be in hardline conservative hands for a generation.
I'll repeat what was already said: "Never" is a long time. The US will probably stand as a country long after every current Supreme Court justice is dead. It will probably stand as a country long after every Supreme Court justice who is nominated in this century is long dead. So the current makeup of the government and Supreme Court is irrelevant when making statements about what could happen in this country in the long term. By your same logic I'm sure if you took a detailed look at our country in 1820 you could have concluded that slavery was never going away as long as the US stands as a country, and you would be equally wrong. We may have political problems in this country today, but if countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain survived their political problems in the middle of the 20th century I think it is foolish to believe the US will not exist for a very long time.
While what I am about to say is only my opinion, I think it is safe to assume that most aspects of the US which are significantly different than other developed Western Democracies will change with time. It will someday become common for our President to be a woman, like it is in most western democracies. We will eventually have universal healthcare and more financially accessible higher education just like most other western democracies. And we will eventually realize that the need to have a well regulated militia in 1791 has little to do with a civilian's need to own firearms in the 21st century.
Nearly nothing will stop these things from coming to pass eventually, and in my opinion before this century is complete. But I will agree that a shift in the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will almost certainly be the last of these predictions to come true.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I personally would love the idea of needing to show proof of a mandated class to own a weapon, provided they're free/cheap and easily available.
Ideal would be a class that provides the basic instruction I outlined above, along with a yearly recurrent training that focuses primarily on anger management and deescalation techniques, along with a refresher on firearm safety and laws, ending with a basic demonstration of firearm maintenance (disassembly/cleaning) marksmanship. All provided for free through local or state law enforcement agencies and funded by the federal goverment (and really groups like the NRA should contribute funding as well, since their whole reason for being was nominally about promoting safe gun ownership-have them put their money where their mouth is).
You can even argue that this limitation is supported by the 2nd Amendment in the phrase "well regulated militia", as historically militia would always gather occasionally to drill/practice (although let's be honest, they probably really just marched around on the town square for an hour or 2, popped off a couple shots at a barrel or bale of hay, then spent the rest of the afternoon down at the local tavern).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Your wait was short. The shooter is already a hero to some... To the hate-filled enemies of the Republic — perfectly willing to kill the ideological opponents after losing in debates and elections.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"I don't know of any people going out trying to kill a mass of people in the name of Christ...please, enumerate them."
Have you had your head up your ass the last 30+ years? You might want to look at all the Christian hate groups that reside in America (and btw, 'Christian' Americans are responsible for most terror attacks in the United States since I was born in 1982.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Thoughts and Prayers to the congressman and his family and to the other victims of the shooter. Wish all a speedy recovery from this sad and senseless tragedy. But does it seem a bit ironic that its very very likely that the congressman, his ball team, and friends at the NRA have vigorously supported the shooters right to own as many guns as he wanted?
Not only has gun violence dropped sharply in the US over the last 20-30 years, it has dropped disproportionately more than in other countries, countries that often have introduced strict gun control during the same time.
Feel free to believe whatever you want. Preferably stay away too.
Do you mean Jared Loughner, the extreme left-leaning nutcast that shot a Republican in the face, you mean? Jesus, could you be any more fucking wrong right off the bat? Fucking idiot.
Exactly. A Left-Wing wacko purposely hunts down Republicans and the answer is "abolish guns."
I used to decry the statement "leftism is a mental disorder" but you know what? Maybe there is something there.
Simple common-sense measure could have prevented this shooting. Guess who decided not only to block such measures but pull the feed from a protest about them being blocked?
A person hunts down people who disagrees with (whether it's Republicans or Democrats, Christians or Muslims, Gays or Straights, Men or Women) your outrage ought to be at the person and those who promote such cause (Trump being killed and beheaded) as opposed to the availability of an inanimate object.
I'm not outraged because this is something I predicted would happen due to a lack of proper government representation combined with near-zero restrictions on firearm sales. Both need to be fixed, one is just kicking the can down the road.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual
Allow me to inject a little reality using a source you doubtless regard as truth incarnate: Washington Post, 2015: We’ve had a Massive Decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why
This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.
You're worldview is fictional. You've been inculcated with fictional nonsense about the US and you're regurgitating it all over the interwebs.
You'll note that wapo at no point credited gun control for the "massive decline." You'll then dismiss that as it fails to align with the fictions you prefer to indulge. The massive decline corresponds to a period in which firearm ownership and concealed carry in the US have both grown at phenomenal rates. There is no correlation between the growth of firearms and gun violence; exactly the opposite. Another reality you'll need to subsume under your preferred bullshit narrative.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"Individual ownership of firearms has only been a constitutional right since 2008"
According to the SCOTUS, it has been an individual Constitutional Right since 1791. Nothing changed. The decision in DC v. Heller was merely the affirmation of a Right which was elaborated in The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court had never been asked to weigh in on the issue previously because it was close to 200 years before government tried to deprive The People of their individual Right. The court doesn't strike down laws which don't exist.
There's zero chance of a Constitutional Amendment to enact gun control. Now that Gorsuch is on the court, it will be decades before there's any chance of a case overturning Heller or McDonald. And hopefully the court agrees to hear Peruta v. California and strikes down another anti-gun law.
I don't think that the NRA headquarters is a "Gun Free Zone." I may be wrong on this.
when did police stop being people??
Where did I say they did? I said "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" as an argument against gun control doesn't work with police as the good guy because even with gun control in the US police would remain armed. Unless you are arguing that the US would full on ban all guns and disarm most police at the same time, which any reasonable person would agree would not happen.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Somehow, the US has more mass shootings than any other country on the planet.
Spectacularly incorrect on the basic facts. I know, irritating, isn't it.
Not to mention, "mass shootings" include, by US standards, things like three drug dealers standing on a corner at night, and someone fires a single pistol shot at one of them AND MISSES. But the bullet hits the brick wall and all three get minor cuts from little chips of flying masonry. But the standards being used to report these stats, THAT is a "mass shooting with multiple victims."
The violent liberal Bernie Bro who attacked people with a rifle this morning? The FBI says that more people are beaten to death every year with pipes, baseball bats, and bare hands then are killed with any sort of long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc) and that includes hunting accidents, suicides and the rest.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That is exactly how he was stopped (good men with guns) and why no-one but him died (because he didn't have time to start killing, rather than just shooting...).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
OK, so there was a shooting. Bad bad. One person was killed (the shooter) and several more injured (two of them pretty seriously. All bad. This has created the usual firestorm of people asserting that gun control would have prevented this and others asserting that if all of the victims were armed it would have prevented this.
Either way it is useful to remember that -- if nobody else dies -- this constitutes 1.2% of the deaths from shootings that will happen (on average) today. If you've actually read any substantial fraction of this (mostly silly) thread, more people died from being shot while you were reading than were killed in this incident (so far). It's also worth remembering that it is better than even odds that one of those two to three deaths wasn't murder, it wasn't self defense, it wasn't even accident, it was somebody using a gun to kill themselves (almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicide).
If you've wasted an hour on the article and thread, 1 person and a fraction on average was shot and killed by others as homicide, two killed themselves, and a tiny fraction accidentally shot a friend or their kid or something (or were shot by their child under age six, in one out of 12 cases). A similarly tiny fraction of ordinary citizens actually used a gun to kill somebody "legitimately", that is in self defense.
Don't get me wrong -- I love guns, shot myself accidentally at age 10, defend the right to own guns etc. But the numbers are the numbers. This case is utterly ignorable, except for the small possibility that it was politically motivated instead of motivated by any of the OTHER reasons people use guns to murder people. Politically motivated shootings are, paradoxically enough, more what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote in our right to bear arms (in a well-regulated militia, which I suppose MIGHT describe a typical drug gang or the Mafia or your local skinhead group). But probably not like this.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
So has speech. With any power comes responsibility. How many criminals could we stop if we did away due process or any constitutional right? The object that made this thread is the same object that protected blacks from the KKK. It is also the object that ensured rights for so many people across time. The ability to abuse is the same ability as to protect.
Contrary to popular belief, the government does not have a monopoly on violence. Self defense is a violent act. The right of arms is way to ensure that my right to self defense not be arbitrarily limited by the government as to be a victim of government complicity or violence. Guns are an equalizer that ensures that the weak and few can defend themselves against the strong and many.
If you are not willing to accept the cost of rights, any of them, then you are not willing to understand the power of rights and they will soon be taken away by a zealous government that promises protection.
I understand why arrested people are called "suspected ____" as they are considered innocent until proven guilty but this grammar is so odd to me logically.
There's never media reports of a "suspected shooter" on the loose... nobody at the field considered him a "suspect" and he was caught red handed, then immediately when caught it became LESS definitive that he shot anyone.
I guess the scenario defines the terminology.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
We need cop control more than we need gun control.
I know you are being sarcastic. But according to what I've read, firearm murders by Democrats outnumber those from Republicans 2 to 1.
What do you read? Seriously - do you have a source for that? Preferably not Alex Jones or Breitbart...
I suspect it's probably true. Correlation not causation. I'm sure there is a race/economic factor involved. The poor have higher gun crime numbers. The poor are much likely to vote democrat.
It's quite possible that it's true - but it's also possible that it's just based on some unreliable fake news blogger who pulled it out of his (or her) ass. That's why I'm asking for the source. If there is a reliable source, we can next see what it actually says in context.
Stephan
Looked. Havent found any evidence they were the left rioting. Only bussed in people not from the leftist liberal university. So basically 50-50 chance.
Of course it won't completely solve the problem. But reasonable gun control would solve enough of the problem to be worth it.
1: No it fucking wouldn't.
2: There's no such thing as "reasonable gun control" without amending the constitution. Every "gun control" law is unconstitutional.
In any form of recent years...what incidents are you speaking of?!?!
I don't know of any people going out trying to kill a mass of people in the name of Christ...please, enumerate them.
Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people and claimed to have carried out the attacks on behalf of an organisation called The Knights Templar fighting a muslim invasion of europe. There are however serious doubts that the organisation he refered to actually exists.
By your same logic I'm sure if you took a detailed look at our country in 1820 you could have concluded that slavery was never going away as long as the US stands as a country, and you would be equally wrong.
I think the comparison is apt. But you underestimate just how close the US come to unraveling completely. Another such conflict in a modern context would be even more devastating.
Germany, Italy, and Spain survived their political problems
In a political sense, those countries did not survive. The governments that those countries have today are not continuations of those that existed at the beginning of the 20th century. Germany doesn't even have the same territorial borders. And those are three of the European countries that fared better in the 20th century. The Austrian empire, the Ottoman empire, Russian empire, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc. all failed under the pressures of the 20th century. The 21st century is still fresh, so betting that any country will still be intact in 100 years is a coin toss. If you take the long view of history, the average life expectancy of geographically expansive political entities is roughly 200 years. And the US is past its expiration date.
No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference
So, you're not really for "gun control", you're for disarming the populace in favor of armed state, which is pretty much the reason the 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the first place.
OR let me ask a question this way, would you support a law that requires permitting for exercise of free speech?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
*Now* that leftists are using firearms to deal with political opponents we they finally stop trying to outlaw guns?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Back in the day, the right of a militia to bear arms had a benefit. These days that's no longer the case
Read the second amendment. Here, I'll help you.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The highest ranking legal document of our nation literally states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The second part isn't conditional upon you believing the first. There's no "if" in there. They're 2 statements in a single sentence.
You can disagree, but you'd be legally incorrect unless you change the constitution.
How are the early reports wrong?
Because we all know, it was the Russians!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That's how it all starts. The idealized right wing is "free market capitalism." People have rights to property, and if you want someone else's property, you need to engage in a voluntary exchange for that property. On the far right you've got anarcho-capitalists, who think the state shouldn't even exist, and "taxation is theft." As a conservative, I sympathize with that, but as Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Unfortunately men are not angels. But since yes, taxation is forcibly taking your shit, and that's wrong, government becomes a necessary evil and so should be limited as much as possible. We're only going to take your shit for things we simply cannot provide any other way, like national defense, police, roads, etc. And even then we're going to feel bad about it.
In the leftist world view, though, the rich don't deserve their property. At the extreme left, property itself is illegitimate, but even the moderate lefties think the rich are evil, they "stole" all their shit, they need the shit, and so forcibly extracting wealth from people is not a necessary evil but a necessary good, and the more the better. And if the evil hated rich don't like it, too fucking bad! """Justice""" will be done! They will never feel bad about what they do the people whose shit they take because they've already decided taking shit is good, and the more the better!
The entire leftist worldview is predicated on violence. That it's good and right and just to take stuff from one group of people and give it to another by force. And once it's okay to do that, and morally justified, you end up with concentration camps, or gulags, or shooting up conservatives at baseball games. The idea that National Socialism is right wing is retarded, because an all-powerful state confiscating the wealth of people (hated minority or not) to provide FREE SHIT to their supporters is not, at all, "right wing." That's the entire leftist handbook.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...
You're comparing an accident with a transportation device with an attempted homicide with a purpose built weapon. Automobiles have plenty of uses besides killing something. Firearms are purpose built weapons. Comparing the two is a false equivalency.
Think again. There were multiple police officers present at this shooting, and Virginia is an open carry state. Yet the shooter still got off 100 rounds before he was stopped. The idea that good guys with guns will stop bad guys with guns is farcical.
The interesting part is its typically Republicans that are pro-2nd Amendment. Now they have been hit (no pun intended) closer to home. I guess we will see if the gun control tune of Republicans moves left a bit.
If you think that is a possibility you really have NO f**king clue about how we ( pro-Second Amendment people ) think.
I'm not a Republican.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
The point is that anyone who commits a murder with a gun is already breaking the law. Further outlawing all use of guns on top of the already-illegal murdery uses therefore necessarily only accomplishes punishing the non-murdery uses.
This is the general issue with this kind of "preventative" banning of anything. Harmful use of whatever is usually already illegal (and if not, it should be). So a blanket ban on that thing then only adds punishment for the non-harmful uses.
I've made the same argument about licensure in general, with drivers licenses as a specific example. Driving recklessly is already a crime, one that you can commit with or without a driver's license. Ostensibly, requiring licensing to operate a vehicle is to prevent reckless driving by untrained drivers. But since reckless driving is already a crime, the only people additional people you punish by having a blanket licensure requirement on top of that law is unlicensed people who were nevertheless driving safely anyway.
If we'd just do the sensible thing and make all punishments proportional to the harm they cause (not saying eye-for-an-eye, but you-pay-for-any-damage-you-cause), that would automatically do away with this kind of punishment of harmless victimless actions "just in case" someone somewhere doing those actions might cause harm. Yes, there are odds at play and I understand the blanket laws are trying to discourage people from doing things likely to cause harm, but if harm translates directly to punishment then likeliness to cause harm automatically translates to likeliness to bring punishment and accomplishes the same thing already.
Note that I'm not saying everyone should be running around with guns or driving without training or anything like that. Those are bad ideas. Because they're likely to harm someone. Which means you're likely to get punished for doing them, when you likely harm someone. So you shouldn't do them. But if someone does manage to do them without harming anyone, they should not be punished for that.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Doesn't look very down to me friend. Do you have some alternate facts I don't know about?
I ask this question every time someone tries to say there was a shift. Exactly WHEN did this shift take place, where the KKK became part of the Republicans. I'll bet, you can't actually point to when. Hell even the revered FDR was a fucking Racist pig segregationist. And lets not forget Johnson's "Ni**er" comments.
Hell I'll even say the Modern Democrat party is filled with the real kind of Racism with their "Blacks can't help themselves, we have to help them" attitude. You can see examples in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What we do know though... is that a couple of good guys with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun.
After he shot all the bullets he had on him so he was pretty much done anyway... but sure, spin it that way if it makes you feel better.
Gabby Giffords was/is a democrat, I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not going into his political leanings, since he is crazy, but Jared Loughner is certainly not "extreme left-wing."
"You saw this for days in the streets after Trump won..."
You also saw a LOT of news about Trump supporters attacking, beating, vandalizing or intimidating people of various ethnicities or ideologies. Of course, they either couldn't be verified or turned out to be out-right fakes by folks on the "other side" who felt they needed to lie or stage fake hate because... TRUMP. Not out of any rational fear based on reality -- just irrational fear of living in their own echo-chambers for so long.
Brady Laws aren't a thing?
Ignorance is lovely this time of year.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Unfortunately The Daily Wire is a news blog founded in 2015 and with an openly conservative bias. Do you have any more impartial, reliable sources with an established record of reporting established facts?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Right, how is supporting the NRA even close to this? I've never heard the NRA advocate the shooting of it's political opponents, have you? I haven't.
Then you haven't been listening. The NRA is really a lobby for the gun industry and they are spewing plenty of rhetoric about how the government or "violent leftists" are coming to get them and the only way to protect yourself is to arm yourself. It's complete bullshit of course but scared people do buy lots of guns. They're clever enough to not directly say "shoot the liberals" but that's certainly what they are strongly implying.
No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference
So, you're not really for "gun control", you're for disarming the populace in favor of armed state, which is pretty much the reason the 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the first place.
OR let me ask a question this way, would you support a law that requires permitting for exercise of free speech?
Where did I say disarmament? See, you've proved a comment a made elsewhere on this thread: any comment in favor of gun control is automatically devolved to the base "take away all guns" argument. Did you even read the rest of my post where I argued for a government provided (and therefore free) class that covers basic firearm safety, storage, handling, and laws before getting a permit (a permit not to own, but simply to carry)? If you can't be bothered to sit down for a couple hour class for 1 day out of your busy schedule, then you simply aren't fit to carry around something that can easily kill. This doesn't stop you from owning a gun, or going to the range, or going hunting. But it does stop people who care so little about others that a couple hours is more important to them than the safety of others to walk around in public with a weapon.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
They are Rpublicans supporting gun rights! Why weren't they armed? Why they were unable to shoot back? Why did they have to take cover and wait for the police?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I agree. That election was effin' metal.
"That's a good point. Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal."
Way off topic, but there's an awesome account of a push during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to limit a standing army to 3000 men. Washington, known for keeping his opinions to himself for the most part -- put on his sarcasm hat and said something to the effect: "I will support this providing we include the following: 'no nation shall invade with a force greater than 5000 men'".
Do you mean Jared Loughner, the extreme left-leaning nutcast that shot a Republican in the face, you mean? Jesus, could you be any more fucking wrong right off the bat? Fucking idiot.
Fucking idiot, it was a different Jared Loughner, the one who believed in right-wing conspiracy theories with a dislike of government {read Republican here}, who voted as an independent in 2006 and 2008. The one who was trying to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman.
What is your definition of mass shooting? It sounds like you have a relatively unusual one, since there have been hundreds of shootings not in "gun-free zones", mostly in private residences.
Every "gun control" law is unconstitutional.
How so? The Constitution only specifies that we have a right to bear arms. It's doesn't specify the type of arms covered. A very strict but logical argument for the 2nd Amendment would be that it only allows single shot muzzleloaders, since that was what was in common usage at the time. But, since that is obviously both unreasonable and impracticable, you already agree that the amendment requires some form of interpretation. Either that, or you are going to go off the deep end and agree that private citizens should be allowed to own operational tanks, nukes, fighters, etc. I could totally see someone like Steve Bannon or Roger Ailes sitting off the coast of DC in their privately owned battleship.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So to co-opt the right's tired argument, why wasn't the congressman armed to protect himself? The political right are the ones who think everyone should have a firearm on them at all times even though most of the time it is a plainly absurd argument.
Sigh... it's a damn shame anyone has to be hurt by a gun. I hope all the victims of this horrible act of violence are ok.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but not even people that support gun control are advocating that the police shouldn't have guns. Virginia is an open carry state and no private citizen heroes helped take him down.
He was using a rifle. Holding a rifle sideways would make even less sense than with a pistol.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Perhaps you missed my question at the end. Do we require any training, permits etc for First Amendment rights?
then you simply aren't fit to carry around something that can easily kill.
Yeah, because a 2 ton vehicle can't kill easily ... right? Or a Pressure Cooker ....
Freedom is messy, perhaps it is best if we go the Fascist route, because at least the trains are on time!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You don't get sarcasm, do you? I was using humor to make a point, as my proposal would clearly (very clearly) never actually work in real life. I swear the critical reading skill have left this site (mods, I'm looking at you).
Here's the thing: It's happened in the past and some day it might happen again in the future. You might have been joking, but there are people out there that will read what you said and think maybe it's not such a bad idea. Again, it's happened before. Don't normalize it.
I'm all for #1 unless we start to get squishy on what law-abiding means. It would be disrespectful of the 2nd amendment to say that anyone with a blemish on their record (e.g. a parking ticket, you filthy lawbreaker) is banned from gun ownership.
There will never be an end to that argument. When should someone no longer be able to possess a firearm? When should they go to jail? When are they such a threat to society that they should no longer be allowed to live? Reasonable people can debate both sides of any of these questions and there are pros and cons both ways. These are exactly the kinds of discussions that people in a healthy nation should be having rather than talking about how evil the other side is.
Regarding #4, I would love to have a rational discussion about gun control policy, but the left has literally made that impossible. That's why we have to resort to hyperbole and sarcasm.
Do you resort to hyperbole and sarcasm because you are frustrated that the other side doesn't agree with you? Lead by example: show them that your way of thinking is better for society and back it up with research and facts. It takes a long time to change people's minds, but people do change.
But I can guarantee you this is what's going to happen: the left will totally disregard the fact that they made this man who he is if this was indeed politically motivated, but they will be howl for far stricter gun control no matter what you say about points #2 and #3 in your post. They might as well start a conspiracy where they send believers out to shoot up the public so they can force their policy onto the country
Why bring up conspiracies? Do you really think most people on the left want others to die so they can enact gun control? I don't think they do. People who murder other people to achieve political goals are sociopaths. I don't think that fits most people on either end of the political spectrum. I think they see tragedy after tragedy on the news and hope that getting rid of guns will make it better. I disagree for a variety of reasons, but it's important to understand their concerns. It's also important to entertain the possibility that even though you and I might disagree with them, there is a chance they are right, and we are wrong.
I'm here for ya, bro.
We don't know that this was a libtard.
Actually we do. Hodgkinson was a Berniac that wrote letters to the editor for years citing Maddow, Reich and all the other usual libtard suspects. The archetypal hate filled leftist.
Just turn off the Internet for the day. Colbert will be on tonight to mollify you with another dose of Trump derangement. Just stay clear of the news till then.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
We need cop control more than we need gun control.
In a way you are right. I always get worried whenever I see a sheriff or a police chief say their most important goal is making sure all their people get home safely. I'm sorry, but that is wrong. The ultimate goal of law enforcement is to make sure citizens get home safely. I understand that you feared for your life when you shot that guy sitting in the front seat of a car, but unless he was actively threatening other people, you shouldn't have shot him. Unless a weapon is already out and being pointed at/threatening people, there is no reason for police to be shooting first. Cops need to stop being law enforcement officers and go back to being peace officers.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Except that nut job was a leftist...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No sir. From the 1640 English Civil War all the way through the 19th C was no debate. It was as "obvious" as the 3rd A. The consensus started changing during the Progressive Era and then post New Deal era.
The thought that "the people" means the state is absurd. The thought that an amendment gave a state rights over individuals is also absurd. And, in case you're still confused:
Here's some relevant points from the Virginia Constitution (1776)
SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The militia is the body of the people trained to arms. The state can call up this body of people and give them roles in a the State Militia, The word militia has multiple meanings. One is every able bodied white male (1790s) from about the age of 16-55 (ages differ in different documents.) The other is the State Militia - that which the governor of the state has authority over. At this point the militia (able-bodied men) have joined the State Militia and are given roles and duties and serve under the direction of the governor.
It's like the word "New York". It can mean the island of Manhattan, the City of NY or the State of NY.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Pretty much anyone who cares to count comes up with the same conclusion. In fact, looking through the articles, you'll see that the ratio is even more skewed than 2:1.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=firearm+m...
That won't be possible. Because they will be killed by someone concealed carrying before it can become "mass".
The classic fantasy behind so many gun advocates. You're seriously going to argue that a bunch of untrained people carrying around concealed firearms is going to be a deterrence against a determined shooter? Gang violence is a thing even thought they know the targets are armed. They just wait for a moment to attack when their guard is down. Representative Scalise evidently even had a security detail and that didn't stop the attack. The simple fact is that concealed carry doesn't stop the violence. I understand the appeal of the idea but there is no evidence that it actually works and even if it did, the vast majority of people simply are not going to carry a firearm with them most of the time. Frankly I have no interest in living around a bunch of paranoid people who are constantly on the lookout for a shootout.
Anti-gun folks always, ALWAYS, forget that given the chance many second amendment advocates would carry guns for their (and their fellow citizens) protection around with them all the time.... And it DOES make a huge difference in being able to defend against an attack.
Bullshit. The attacker pretty much always gets to attack first and you had better hope they miss. Furthermore it is demonstrably ridiculous to carry a weapon on you at all times. These people were playing a game and had a security detail and it STILL didn't stop the attack.
There are not "near-zero restrictions on firearm sales." As a gun-owner I know first hand. I live in NYS. I cannot even touch a side arm without showing my license. The gun store owner will not even take it out of the case.
If you want to be respected please take the time to learn about the subject else you sound like those recruiters who don't know the difference between Java and Javascript.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
you were saying????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Good news. The NRA already provides the classes.
So the good part of your suggestion is done. Fuck the government mandates and tracking though, right in the ear.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Technology has solved that problem. It will take 20 years for cop culture to change reflecting 'always on cameras', but they're on the path.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Then the nation needs to split into at least 2-3 smaller independent nations. That way the Christian theocrats can have their version of Sharia Law, the Libertarians can have their minimal-government free-fire zone, and the rest of us can try to move forward.
I'm a little curious. Obviously, the southeast would be the new nation where the Christian theocrats take over. But what region would be the Libertarian zone, in your view? I don't see the Northeast going that way; Vermont/NH maybe, but they're a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall NE population. Or the west coast? But here again, that region is very liberal, just in a different way from places like NYC. My guess is that the southwest is probably most likely to become a "minimal-government free-fire zone", but CA and the northwest aren't going to want to be part of that.
Also, it isn't just the southeast where the Christian theocrats rule. New Jersey's Bergen County, part of the NYC metro area, has the most restrictive blue laws in the country, forbidding most businesses and work on Sundays. Chris Christie (yep, the crappy Republican) tried to repeal them but failed. He managed to get the blue law suspended for only 1 week after Hurricane Sandy. And Bergen County seems to vote pretty reliably Democrat, and they voted for Hillary in November. In "liberal" New York, alcohol sales are prohibited on Sunday mornings statewide, and most counties have even more restrictive blue laws of their own. In "liberal" Massachusetts, alcohol sales are prohibited on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Memorial days. In Pennsylvania, alcohol sales are restricted on Sundays, and car dealerships are prohibited from operating on Sundays. And those are just northeast states; there's tons of such laws in the interior states. North Dakota seems to have the strictest blue laws in the country (at the state level), and that's nowhere near the Bible Belt.
The way I see it, the Christian theocrats are a strong and reliable voting bloc in most parts of the country, except for some large coastal cities. And since the theocrats have lots of kids while the liberals don't, the problem is getting worse, not better. Liberals are basically relying on "defection" to keep their numbers up, and a fanciful (and basically religious) notion that social mores will inevitably become more liberal over time, which has been disproven by history many times. Just look at the "roaring 20s", and contrast that to the decades that came after.
Did you capture the guy, interrogate him and figure out why he acted the way that he did and institute the changes necessary to prevent in the future? Executing without learning motivations is an unproductive use as well. Never mind that their use would be less necessary if they were less controlled.
gifford was shot by a left wing nutjob, NOT a right wing one, stop trying to spin the story
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
what stats are you looking at? gun crime is WAY down compared to 20-30 years ago in the states
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
you are kidding right??? antifa isnt left wing????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That group is called the Mainstream Media.
Lack of 'knowhow' prevented this moron from killing anyone outright. About a 10% hit rate. Obviously a liberal, 'spray and pray'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference. If there stronger gun control, the bad guy might not have had a gun but those police still would have."
Let's live in the real world. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. That's not going away without a constitutional amendment.
So, right now, it is an actual reality that if you make gun ownership illegal only criminals will have guns. It's a trope, but it is true. Most people follow the law. During prohibition, drinking alcohol dramatically went down. It worked. It had many unintended consequences as well.
So, lets live in the real world where bad guys can get guns and chew on the idea that "when seconds count, the police are minutes away".
btw... I don't own a gun. I don't like them and I don't want one. I also believe that George Mason got it right with the 2nd amendment.
There are not "near-zero restrictions on firearm sales." As a gun-owner I know first hand. I live in NYS. I cannot even touch a side arm without showing my license. The gun store owner will not even take it out of the case.
Prime examples of things that are irrelevant to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Congratulations on being...
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Not an American, so I may be missing something.
Why is gun registration such a big deal while car registration is A-OK?
50% of murders in the USA are committed by a demographic group that consistently votes over 90% democrat (FBI crime stats).
The remaining 50% are going to be fairly evenly divided.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Good news. The NRA already provides the classes.
So the good part of your suggestion is done. Fuck the government mandates and tracking though, right in the ear.
What tracking? You take the class, you get a certificate which is shown when you apply for a carry permit. The permit shows the date of your class. You then have to take a recurrent class every 10-14 months, the date of which is noted on your permit as well. If a cop pulls you over and stops you in the street and they ask for your ID, you show them the permit that has the class dates on it. Coming up on your window, they remind you to take the class. If the last date on your permit is outside 14 months, then you inelligble to carry the firearm. My proposal is in regards to carrying permits, not ownership permits. If you have a CCL you are probably in a database already,so why are you worried about tracking in the first place?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It only 'seems dubious' to you because you don't like the conclusion. As you say, they don't collect the data directly.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The guy who shot Giffords was a leftist nutcase.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Keep point to understand is that an ability to do "a little planning" and tendency to engage in mass murders is inversely correlated for individuals acting alone.
The shooter didn't vocalize his complaints, so we resort to "left-wing wacko". What if he wasn't?
Well, maybe not vocalize, but here's a picture of one of his complaints.
He was a member of several anti-GOP Facebook groups, including "Terminate the Republican Party" and "The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans."
And here's one of his facebook postings
Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co.,
He also volunteered for the Sander's campaign. It seems pretty clear he steers a little toward the left on the political spectrum, but judge for yourself...
Would we have the same reaction if he was an average guy that thought he had no other options?
Maybe, maybe not, but I don't engage in hypotheticals..
Alternatively, it could also be the incessant anti-Trump/GOP rhetoric that the Left has been spewing.
tell that to the guy that was almost bullet proof, full of vests and protective suit, many years ago (sorry, cant recall the name nor location)... normal guns were useless and it took several polices with higher energy guns to kill him... during that time, we was free to shot anyone that come close
Higuita
This was before they went to work in DC, where it is practically impossible to get a carry license. Should Congress pass a law superceding DC's gun regulations when it comes to Congresscritters (members and their staff)?
No, it will not happen then, either. And not a one of these Congressmen is going to change their minds, either. We have these things called "rights," and lots and lots of people have already died for them. You may have heard about it, a little thing called WORLD WAR AMERICAN REVOLUTION 2. Nobody's giving up their rights over a few more shootings. That's what "cold dead hands" means.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
my argument was that eventhough he was a cop, he was a good guy with a gun. he didnt have to be a cop to be a good guy with a gun but he was.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The Constitution says NOTHING about restricting the right to murder. Why do you hate our freedoms?
Keep pretending to yourself that you know what you're talking about. There are plenty of laws out there. More than enough to regulate the legal ownership of guns. You're not simply interested in making certain that felons and mentally ill people don't purchase guns. What you truly want is to remove guns from the society.
Ain't gonna happen.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Also, a violent leftist just shot up a bunch of conservatives. Yes, that totally makes me, a conservative, want to give up my guns now.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Lack of 'knowhow' prevented this moron from killing anyone outright. About a 10% hit rate. Obviously a liberal, 'spray and pray'.
He knew what to do, just lacked the skill or the steady hand. You're probably right about him being a liberal, if he were a right winger he would have had more practice killing innocent people and would have got a higher hit rate.
I don't think he was doing much praying though if he's a leftie. Not to American God anyway. Probably French God or something like that. - that's how it works isn't it?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Seems to me that armed people were able to stop this shooter before they were able to kill anyone. Sounds like a pro-gun situation to me...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
He learned it from the President.
Learned WHAT from the president? How to send people to rallies to start fights? Oh, right, that's liberals. How to stage plays and public relations stunts with corporate sponsorship that depict the murder of political opponents? Oh, right, that's liberals. Encouraging the writing of editorials that cheer on things like Berkeley liberals literally beating people bloody for the sin of not being in perfect groupthink sync? Oh, right, that's liberals. Egging on multiple media networks to spend 24x7 on utterly unhinged phony narratives to distract from a growing series of election losses, rather than face why they lost? Oh, right - liberals!
The only fascists here are on the left. They're the ones using and - as a large, organized movement, praising the use of violence to suppress free speech and to try to undo election results. It doesn't GET any more brownshirty than the way progressive activists conduct themselves. The wannabe tyrants - the ones who say the First Amendment is dangerous, and that their political opponents should be silenced with systematic violence and oppression - are on the left. They're proud of it. They LIKE violence when it's their own pet thugs doing it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Whatever it takes to get them to crack their eyes open is good. They'll mostly grow out of their political stupidity.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Do you have any links for this
There's simply no way you are that out of touch, so you have to be pretending to be. Why? Who do you think you're fooling?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What's a Gun Free Zone? You mean like when you enter the Capitol, you have to put your bag through the x-ray? Should we have one of those security lines to enter the park?
So is it your argument that having firearm safety, storage, handling, and permitting laws will stop criminals from shooting people? I mean, I'm all for preventing accidental shootings, but anyone with intent to kill using a weapon will go through whatever hoops the government puts up to make it more difficult to obtain a weapon.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
It's assholes like you that caused this mess
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
-- Barack Hussein Obama
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
my argument was that eventhough he was a cop, he was a good guy with a gun. he didnt have to be a cop to be a good guy with a gun but he was.
I agree, but you can't use this situation in that argument because, gun control or not, the cops would already have been armed. If it was a case of a guy taking his dog for a walk in the park engaging with the shooter and taking him down then it would be a perfect case to use in that argument.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Or rent a truck.
Or use a Pressure Cooker
Or fly an airplane into a building
Or Burn an Apartment complex down
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Strict yes, logical no. The Constitution allowing only single shot muzzle loaders is akin to every law only applying to 1787 technology. The logical course is that the Constitution allowed for private citizens to own the latest and greatest military technology available. Nukes might be an exception, but I'd argue that the government shouldn't even have control of those... What's wrong with a citizen owning a tank or a fighter aircraft?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
There needs to be a process for legitimate suicide. I mean getting documents in order and getting your body disposed of properly. We can't just have people offing themselves wherever they feel like it and investigators being tied up trying to figure out where these corpses came from.
Exactly. Now all I'm thinking about is which do I want more a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Let's live in the real world. Gun ownership is a constitutional right. That's not going away without a constitutional amendment.
So, right now, it is an actual reality that if you make gun ownership illegal only criminals will have guns.
I'm a gun owner. I love guns, and I collect them. I don't want to ban them. The simple truth is that most guns either aren't owned by criminals, or were stolen from people that did legally own them. Train people how to own and use them safely and shootings will go down. The likelihood of getting shot by someone you don't know outside your own home is very small, but that is what people focus on. By supporting safe gun ownership and anger management you greatly reduce the likelihood of accidents or domestic violence which accounts for a large part of gun deaths. Throw in reasonable mental health support and you can cut down on the incidences of suicide too.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
History?
Which Reagan loss? He ran for president, many times, before finally winning twice. Most of the losses were in the primary. He quit on a win...
I think the rest of your post is similarly misinformed. You must be a kid.
BTW have a look at the Antifa gun club video on YouTube. They are shooting (spraying) rifles at about 25 feet and kicking up dust 20 feet away from the target. If they keep that up, they will shoot each other. Learned to shoot playing video games, to the extent they learned at all.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just because he said something happened doesn't mean it did. Cite an actual news source that has at least the slightest shred of credibility. The update in this summary, that cites Trump, only serves to discredit itself in so doing.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Registration is the first step toward confiscation.
Technically, guns in the U.S. are registered when the sales and background check information is reported to the government. It's illegal for them to keep the data, but they do it anyways.
But that's only for the first sale. If a ban is enacted and they come to my door to collect my AR15, I can tell them I sold it to someone else and I don't remember the name. There will be nothing anyone can do about it. If private transfers are regulated then I'll either have the gun to give up, proof of who has it now, or I'm clearly guilty of a crime.
That's why it's a big deal. I know it may sound strange to a non-American, but it's just in our nature to not trust our government.
Also, if they can't even keep drugs out of prisons then they're not going to keep guns away from criminals. Laws, bans, registrations only affect law abiding citizens.
Senator Rand Paul was there but he is not recorded as having done anything useful. He's an MD but he let others treat the wounded. He is not recorded as having done anything to attempt to stop the gunman or report the incident to emergency personnel.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
At least you got closer to almost being correct than the AC above, who claimed it was Fox News. Unfortunately, you are still wrong on the main aspect of your post.
The graphic you are trying to refer to did not advocate for shooting anyone. The 'gun targets' people refer to weren't gun targets. Anyone who isn't a biased moron could see what the graphic actually was.
Here's a fun idea: Print out the graphic (it isn't hard to find) and bring it to a liberal doctor. Ask them what they see in it, not just what they think it means.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
We now know the identity of the shooter. Choice quotes from FB: "The road to hell is paved with dead republicans"
Maybe the casing wasn't ejecting properly so he needed gravity to help.
50% of murders in the USA are committed by a demographic group that consistently votes over 90% democrat (FBI crime stats).
The remaining 50% are going to be fairly evenly divided.
"FBI crime stats" is not a proper citation, it's another unsubstantiated claim. And while you are dog whistling, that does not make your argument any more sound. So you suggest that blacks commit about 50% of murders (may be in the statistics, but it's questionable how good they are) and that 90% of blacks vote democratic (which is reasonable at least on the national level). But then you seem to suggest that these two are statistically independent, so you can infer (or at least suggest) that 90% of the 50% vote democratic. That's quite an assumption. I'd suspect that many of the 50% are convicted felons who don't vote at all. And, less hair-splittingly, I would assume that most of the 50% are from very much socially disadvantaged groups that rarely vote at all.
Stephan
You're not simply interested in making certain that felons and mentally ill people don't purchase guns.
And yet that's exactly what the bills were trying to regulate and what 85% of people think should be laws.
What you truly want is to remove guns from the society.
A) That's not what I want.
B) That would require a constitutional amendment.
Ain't gonna happen.
I realize this and many people will continue to die on a daily basis from gunshot wounds.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had a learning disability. It says right at the bottom of the graph that their data is from the US Justice Department. Show me some credible data that supports your claim.
But that's irrelevant since he had plenty of right wing policies which were destructive compared to the left wing ones that helped the country.
Well. You understand that 2% of the US counties have something like 33% - 50% of the gun violence.
If you're interested in gun violence we ought to apply the Pareto principle. Let's focus there.
The problem is not the availability of guns as there are many counties with a far greater concentration of guns but less gun violence. Therefore the solution is not the removal of guns.
It would also help if gun control advocates didn't keep distorting things and fooling themselves that they have a grasp of the statistics.
Here's the big one - the bait and switch: Talk about murders and how horrible it is and then say there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year. Notice the bait and switch? Gun deaths includes suicides and they account for 2/3 of the total. If countries without guns had a lower suicide rate you would have a case. But, unfortunately for the argument, other countries do not have a lower suicide rate.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
In the days leading up to WWIi the thugs on the street were not just of the right or the left. There was a real mix of adventurist nuts. The NAZIs even used this as an excuse to justify their extremes to the public. They considered themselves righteous anti Communists.
There are even a few shitbags even in this thread with comments cheering on leftist thug violence.
Whenever crap like this happens it's always the same stupid argument. Gun Control! When are we going to start addressing the real threat to this nation. Sports Violence!
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
How does this in any way relate to why you oppose the commonsense gun bills?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The US has seen a massive decline in violent crime in general, along with a decline in teen pregnancies. There is no correlation between increased gun-ownership, increased conceal-and-carry, and increased violent crime.
While it's only a theory and correlation does not strictly imply causation, I cautiously subscribe to the lead-crime hypothesis:
"Second, this correlation holds true with no exceptions. Every country studied has shown this same strong correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime rates. Within the United States, you can see the data at the state level. Where lead concentrations declined quickly, crime declined quickly. Where it declined slowly, crime declined slowly. The data even holds true at the neighborhood level - high lead concentrations correlate so well that you can overlay maps of crime rates over maps of lead concentrations and get an almost perfect fit.
Third, and probably most important, the data goes beyond just these models. As Drum himself points out, "if econometric studies were all there were to the story of lead, you'd be justified in remaining skeptical no matter how good the statistics look." But the chemistry and neuroscience of lead gives us good reason to believe the connection. Decades of research has shown that lead poisoning causes significant and probably irreversible damage to the brain. Not only does lead degrade cognitive abilities and lower intelligence, it also degrades a person's ability to make decisions by damaging areas of the brain responsible for "emotional regulation, impulse control, attention, verbal reasoning, and mental flexibility."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Will they support gun restrictions
or will they
Stop backing russia?
Stop passing laws that will result in the death's of people, their children, their parents, and their spouses?
The shooter was violent but not crazy.
There are a LOT of violent but not crazy gun owners in the U.S.
Laws are not passed in a vacuum.
Ignoring russian efforts to destroy the u.s. isn't happening in a vacuum.
Actively obstructing efforts to investigate russian efforts to destroy the u.s. isn't happening in a vacuum.
I'm betting now that republican congressional representatives are being shot that they will fold on their support for the 2nd amendment.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
the leftists, marxists, islamists and put them in the oven.
Yes, and it's from 2001-2011. Is that "the last 20-30 years"? In the US, the peak was in 1993, then it dropped until 2001 has been fairly stable since. The BBC tried to deceive its readers by choosing a time period that fit their political agenda.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are incapable of basic math.
I seem to remember a recently elected Congressman from the Midwest pleading guilty to bodyslamming a reporter. Or by "recent" do you mean only within the last few days?
Body slam a reporter vs shoot as many baseball players as possible.
By God, you're right! It's the exact same thing. Damned homicidal Republicans!!
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
In the leftist world view, property is a collective agreement. Ownership of property can only exist within the structure of a well-functioning society. In Mad Max anarchy, you have no right to property beyond what you can personally defend. You might be able to personally defend your own small homestead, but property beyond that is yours only by virtue of the state that you live in. So, to the leftist, the question is not about who "deserves their property" or not, its about allocation of resources to maintain and sustain the social order that make ownership of property possible in the first place.
Keep point to understand is that an ability to do "a little planning" and tendency to engage in mass murders is inversely correlated for individuals acting alone.
Cite?
It appears to me that most mass murderers do extensive planning. The fetishize it and dream about it for months, if not years. If you'd like, I can provide a long list of examples of this type. But I doubt you need me to.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The key phase is "well regulated". This is an old Masonic term. In part it means "well behaved" but it has other connotations in Masonic tradition with regards to obedience to established hierarchies of authority, etc... Mason's don't have to be Christian, but they do have to believe in some kind of creator. Without some semblance of a creator, there's no final arbiter of right and wrong.
Because we have many "common sense" gun bills on the books as it is.
You decry gun violence. Well the overwhelming majority of the violence is in 2 percent of the counties. Focus your attention there.
How does preventing me from having a 10 round clip help us in lowering gun violence in those 2 counties? It doesn't.
Commonsense is this:
- Pass a background check.
- Pass a gun safety course.
- Each time I buy a gun you run a check to see that I not a felon who has there gun rights temporarily suspended.
- At that point I can buy any semi-automatic weapon of my choice regardless of color, or after market add ons such as grips or silencers (guns are very loud and movies are BS silencers do not reduce the sound to a whisper)
- As long as I do not convert the semi-automatic to fully automatic the weapon is legal.
- My license is valid in all 50 states.
I can travel with my arms in all 50 states (subject to differing storage and carrying laws) Meaning, for instance, that they have to be unloaded and stored in a locked bag.
The above would be common sense gun laws.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
"Second, this correlation holds true with no exceptions. Every country studied has shown this same strong correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime rates.
So I take it South Africa wasn't included in the study?
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I think there is some confusion because most reports had the shooter wearing blue jeans while the guy who asked about Republicans or Democrats was apparently wearing shorts.
That could be a matter of not really paying attention to some stranger walking by asking an odd question or maybe he pulled on some pants when he went to get his gun(s).
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Can you read? He said 'bigger mass shootings" "Than ever happened in the US"
The largest in the US is the Pulse Nightclub, at 50 dead. Your links prove that France's attack was 130 dead, and while some of those were bombing victims, more than 50 died of gunfire.
As for the other, he is incorrect. There have been high death toll shootings in places outside of 'gun-free' zones. However, the top 3 mass shootings in the US were in Gun-Free zones. And 8 of the top 10.
You're a vitriolic ideologue who can't read, and a perfect example of the real problem.
Based on my observations (I can't find any good data) law enforcement officers are just as likely to shoot innocent bystanders as Joe Schmo gun nut. Possibly even more so since they are exposed to deadly force situations more often.
Or did you forget the innocent people shot in a truck in LA while the cops were hunting down a killer?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The difference between guns and cars is that a car is designed to efficiently move people around while most guns are specifically designed to kill people. The vast majority of guns have no other usefull purpose to society.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
How much carnage will it take before something is done about the problem?
except in Europe. the UK had a problem with some of the more recent attacks of having to go and get guns during the emergency, as the bobbies don't always carry guns
Just because someone can't/doesn't bother voting, doesn't change their political affiliation. Show me any statistics that shows 90%+ of blacks are not democrats.
The crime stats speak for themselves.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's about what I assume where you were getting the data from. The statistic may indeed be true, but it is far from meaningful.
Unless you compared republicans vs democrats within the same socio-economic group the data doesn't really tell you anything.
It's like saying eating Ice Cream makes you drown because in months when Ice Cream sales are highest more people drown. This is a true statistic but it's because hot weather makes you eat more ice cream and swim more. Ice Cream doesn't cause drowning.
Being a democrat has nothing to do with being a murderer via gun.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"Second, this correlation holds true with no exceptions. Every country studied has shown this same strong correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime rates.
So I take it South Africa wasn't included in the study?
That's a fair point. A quick google for violent crime rates in South Africa shows a (murder) trend that increases rapidly and peaks in the early 90s, then falls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The difference is that leaded gas was still widely used there after the peak. I did find an article talking generally about violent crime in South Africa:
http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews...
The political climate I think is the big thing. Negotiations regarding ending Apartheid started in 1990 and ended with the election in 1994. That violent crime increased up to those negotiations and then decreased to 1970s levels afterward doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence. I imagine that's overshadowing everything else, including whatever effects leaded gasolline are having on their (still very high!) violent crime rates.
Murder is illegal. Though it does not stop all murders. By your argument, we should make it perfectly legal. After all, murders are still happening at an alarming rate. If making murder illegal is not stopping murders, then what is the point?
Because laws don't exist to stop someone from committing a crime; they exist to punish those who commit them, and to remove them from society.
Which, of course, means that a hypothetical law banning guns won't actually stop criminals from owning guns; it will merely punish those who get caught. It will, however, stop millions of law abiding citizens from owning guns. So, if you advocate a gun ban, what you're really saying is you want to take away the legal right of millions of innocent people, for the sole purpose of having one extra law to punish those whom you could have just arrested for robbery/assault/murder instead.
Seems pretty stupid to me.
> Fortunately... unfortunately... irregardless... they are called Anti-fa, which
? is a separate group. And for claiming to be anti-fascist, they are remarkably
> fascists. The black hood & mask are the new brown shirt or white robe.
They are anti-free speech. Just try to book a conservative speaker into Oakland.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
...
I don't even need a permit to lawfully carry a concealed firearm. Boy, it's tough dodging all those bullets. Seriously, I can lawfully carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Right now, I have that right. You want to take that right from me, why?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And yet whatever is passing for "sociopolitical violence" these days seems to pale in comparison to the 1960s/early 1970s when we had a lot more domestic politically oriented violence -- civil rights protests, the many civil rights riots, riots against the war in Viet Nam, and several home grown domestic terror groups planting bombs, robbing banks and so on. Not to mention the huge number of airline hijackings.
When was the last time the US had a serious riot that lasted more than a day and required the services of the National Guard to suppress? The Rodney King riots in the 1990s?
I seem to remember a recently elected Congressman from the Midwest pleading guilty to bodyslamming a reporter. Or by "recent" do you mean only within the last few days?
Everyone on the right agrees that what he did was wrong. He himself apologized for it, donated a bunch of cash, and then turned down a plea bargain which would have let him off with a slap on the wrist and elected to be tried in court. The guy made a mistake in a moment of passion, but all of his actions since then have demonstrated that he has more integrity and honour than the entire Democrat party put together.
Do you really think the US has more mass shootings than Mexico?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Society is only one method of enforcing property claims.
"His name was James Damore."
You decry gun violence. Well the overwhelming majority of the violence is in 2 percent of the counties. Focus your attention there.
But 100% of guns related to gun violence come from people selling guns.
Commonsense is this: ....
The background check bill got canned immediately.
I do not believe opening the market to more military hardware is a good idea.
I think you are talking about suppressors rather than silencers but I understand your point.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Jared Laughner shot a democratic congresswoman in the face.
"His name was James Damore."
You will not like my answer.
Yes. I accept that firearms will continue to be used to cause harm. Yes. I am okay with that. No. No number of deaths will change my views.
I enjoy a free society. My answer will remain the same, even if a loved one is the victim.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yes, let's find a single incident and focus on it. How many Tea Party rallies were violent? About zero. How many libtard rallies have turned to violence in the last six month? Half? More?
Let's see, the USSR murdered something like sixty million of its own citizens. China - how many? I'd argue that the left is WAY ahead of murder of people. Ban the left.
I'm terribly afraid the useful idiots won't ever see this. Those who are idiots, are usually useful ones, and will end up dying , too, after groveling and screaming "I didn't expect THIS to happen"
Most cops now have 223s in their cars, just because of those two.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Name others.
In 2007 - he was leftist. But by the time of the shooting.... https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Suppressors and silencers are interchangeable words. :)
However I don't think clip and magazine are. Not that it matters to this conversation.
Re selling guns. I, as a law-abiding gun owne,r face numerous restrictions, many arbitrary and completely foolish.
There is a background check in existence. The Orlando shooter was reported by the gun store and still passed the FBI check. (Was it for politically correct reasons? Don't know.)
Military is fully automatic. Not semi-automatic. That's what makes it military. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930s.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
It does not seem to be that extraordinary of a claim. We know that blacks accounts for a disproportionately high number of murderers at 40%. We also know that blacks support Democrats at rates around 87%:7% for D:R. Those are the two component facts that make the claim fairly believable because that gives you one third of all murderers right off the bat. Hispanics are roughly 20% of the white population and support Democrats at rate of 63%:27% D:R. Non-hispanic whites are support Democrats at a rate of about 26%:36% D:R. The other minorities are basically a non-factor at this point.
If we assume 5,000 murders then we should expect 1740 done by Democrat blacks, 624 by Democrat whites, and 378 by Democrat hispanics with 140 done by Republican blacks, 864 by Republican whites, and 162 by Republican hispanics. This brings our totals to 2742 murders by Democrats and 1166 murders by Republicans with 1092 murders by individuals who would be considered independent or affiliated with a non-major party. Those figures do show a 2.35:1 ratio of D:R murderers.
This is what we should expect given national demographics. The question to ask at this point then is what factors would cause the murderer population to veer away from the national distribution for party affiliation in order to drop the ratio from 2.35:1 to below 2:1. One big factor would be income level which is a factor that would lead one to believe that it would increase the number of Democrat murderers and decrease the number of Republicans. What factors can you think of that might cause it to swing towards Republicans?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Yeah I'll just leave this here...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
There are a lot more direct, believable explanations for the reduced crime. Better policing, reduced drug use, increased access to birth control and safe abortions (the abortions thing is very politically charged, sorry!), improved education, increased surveillance, reduced poverty, better mental health care, and loads more. The lead connection is very indirect. The lead theory is compelling because it is a red herring - it was unexpected, almost like there is some secret underground reason that we've all been missing. It makes for a cool story, but we will never really know how much, if any, impact it has.
But there is no evidence of any treason committed by any Republican of note today. A hate-filled enemy of the Republic is you, pal...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
With a pistol you're making a statement: "I'm such a bad ass gunslinger that I don't need to aim!"
With a rifle it'd be, "I can't find my shoulder."
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Right, the National Socialist Worker's Party that instituted free education, free healthcare, massive public works projects, nationalized entire industries, that was totally right-wing. All you have to do is take Bernie Sanders' screeds and replace "the 1%" with "the Jews" and he sounds just like Hitler. It's still the same shit: you've got stuff, we want it, and we're going to bust your heads open in the street to get it.
Wow !! Did Bernie actually say he wanted to put "the 1%" in camps of some sort? How extraordinary!
Why the fuck do you assume I am not? I can say whatever I want, and actually anybody (be american or not) can say anything they want about 'murica. Go to hell trumptard.
Truth is hard eh? You just use alt-facts (= lies) when it is convenient. Yes: GUN VIOLENCE is higher in the US than any other place not in an active civil war. Trumptard.
First, Montana is NOT the middle west, it's the intermountain west. Second, since it was at the election, that's completely unreasonable to make as a commentary. No, it's the left that is the source of all the violence in the country.
So a left wing organization says 'there's a growing threat of right wing extremist terrorism!' and that is the same as ACTUAL terrorism that the left is doing? Really? On what planet do you live? That of George Orwell? As for these folks: Seventy-four percent of these murders came at the hands of right-wing extremists such as white supremacists, sovereign citizens and militia adherents. 1. If this is true why wasn't it reported in national news? Is it because...it didn't happen? 2. I cannot imagine a more diverse group of people that dislike each other, other than white supremecists, sovereign citizens, and militia adherants. Now, the left wingers that hate everyone who isn't twisted just like themselves, yeah, those I can see doing just about anything.
Funny, all his friends reported he was extremely left wing.
No Republican has ever owned slaves. That is not true of Democrats even today, who try and make people slaves. Bzzt. Your argument is wrong.
That was a screed that made no sense whatsoever. As a person who is not a redneck, but knows some, I can tell you with a knowledge sure and complete, that this is totally spurious. Now, about the hipster bozos being useful idiots, that's true.
The stats are the stats.
And our rights are our rights.
Keep it up though; the more you gun grabbers mouth off the further you get from power.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Of course it won't completely solve the problem. But reasonable gun control would solve enough of the problem to be worth it.
1: No it fucking wouldn't.
2: There's no such thing as "reasonable gun control" without amending the constitution. Every "gun control" law is unconstitutional.
1. i agree
2. you are wrong. not every gun control law is unconstitutional.
Example? restricting fire arms to anyone that has been disenfranchised (the constitutional supportable version here folks) by legal statute. very constitutional.
restricting sales of weapons to anyone that by the strict legal definition does not have a valid standing to be present in the country at the time of purchase? also constitutional. There are probably tons more examples that can be found.
whenever you toss out absolutes you are usually going to make yourself be wrong.
We aren't talking about whether it is high in absolute terms, we are talking about your claim that it has not dropped in the US.
You: Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual
Me: Not only has gun violence dropped sharply in the US over the last 20-30 years, it has dropped disproportionately more than in other countries, countries that often have introduced strict gun control during the same time.
I'm afraid that has to be only an "honorary Trumptard" for now, though who knows what 2020 will bring. Feel free to call me other names, though, if it brings you some release. You might try calling me a "deplorable sexist self-hating faggot honky", perhaps? Just let it all out, I've probably heard it before.
Nope. We don't need any more gun laws. We have plenty. We just need to enforce the ones we have.
Did you notice today that the only way a bad man with a gun was stopped was by a good man with a gun? Yes, it was a cop with a gun, but cops can't be standing by everyone's side. You people will never understand why citizens need guns. When seconds count the police are minutes away.
Must be a lot more than vehicle deaths given the attention and funding that terror achieves.
When living in the US, I was surprised how little media coverage road deaths get. Here in oz, each one is reported, and there is a big safety push. That said, I do not know if the stats are much different when one considers we do not have ice and snow here.
Australia 5
Canada 6 (They have ice and snow)
USA 11
Looks like the USA should be paying attention to something other than terror.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if a bad guy with a gun opened fire in the middle of a packed convention hall with tens of thousands of good guys with guns surrounding him? You have two possibilities: Everyone opens fire to stop the shooter, many miss (statistically), and the friendly fire is counted in the scores or hundreds. Nobody opens fire, recognizing that there is no clean shot with so many spectators around the shooter and it's simply not a safe place to discharge a firearm. In that case the shooter gets of a few dozen rounds and kills or injures a similar number before some brave soul tackles and disarms him.
In either case, many people are killed and/or injured. In a similar situation where nobody in the hall has a gun except the attacker, the same Samaritan takes him down and disarms him.
The presence of "good guys with guns" preventing death and injury in mass shootings is a myth and a Hollywood fantasy. There are times and places where a ggwag might make a difference, but these are not it.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
gun nut is deluded nut job, surprise surprise.
When did Hitler, during his ascendancy (or ever, really) say he wanted to put the Jews in camps? The camps came way, way, way after dehumanizing them and blaming them for all the Germans' problems.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Or maybe even a patriot.
Who knows.
With all this Russian backchannel action going on there are a few people pissed off for a few reasons.
Mistake?
More integrity and honour?
WTF is it with the partisan shit here these days?
the creator isn't necessarily the garbage collector of the universe.
Wasn't my point at all. Masons won't let you join if you can't swear an oath to a higher authority. That's the mindset of the people that wrote "a well regulated millitia..." They believed in rules, and good conduct, and a hierarchy of authority that ends with some higher level of moral authority. You get rid of all that and there no absolute authority to say murder isn't wrong. I just wanted to point out that the 2nd isn't absolute, you have to behave yourself to secure it. Our shooter today clearly didn't meet that standard.
[code](void) main(void){ ][/code]
A void casted main() is perfectly legal C, but only embedded guys call main like that.
Nope. You, citizen, are responsible for getting your own ass, carcass still attached, home safely, should you be so inclined. This is why you are allowed under the Constitution to carry a weapon. This is also why you should be circumspect with your actions when under the direct scrutiny of law enforcement.
People who do not realize this and do not act accordingly leads to sad and frequently tragic ends. from my perspective it is just predictable. Disorientation to authority, combined with misapprehensions concerning the place of law enforcement, conflated with a healthy dose of human nature, and finished off with an exacerbating dose of violence or threat and, well...you get what you ordered.
Just so you understand this I will restate it. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the government or law enforcement to provide you with a chaperone, a shepherd, or a nanny. It is their responsibility, at a certain point, to provide you with a lawyer, but if you have reached this point you have probably made some very poor choices already.
But never, ever make the mistake again of thinking that another person is responsible for your safety. It is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard a suspected human being utter in my entire life. No one cares about your life as much as you do. Some do not care at all. Not only do they care more about themselves, but they also possesses an ingrained mechanism that forces them to err on the side of their own survival. It operates at a level of consciousness that is pre-lingual. They don't even get to think in words before it kicks in. And you are relying on that tenuous crap shoot of every damn thing lining up for you to make it home safely?
I'm surprised you have made it this far.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed.
Actually by definition, this is terrorism. It was violence used to make a political statement. That is practically the dictionary definition of terrorism:
terrorism
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Wait a minute, let me just check something. Oh, he's white. Nevermind. Mass shooting it is.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"The Republicans started this preach violence for political gain thing after Reagan lost"
Citations, please.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
My question was quite specific.
Why don't I hear the same outrage about the mandatory licence plate on your vehicle?
Steve Scalise is a third ranking Republican in the House and receives full-time protective details by Capitol Police. His presence at baseball field meant good guy with guns were already there to save lives. If they were forced to wait for police to arrive, there would likely been multiple fatalities before culprit was neutralized.
Yup. I'm a nut. But I have the facts on my side and I'm winning the battle of ideas.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Somebody is confused. Four or more killed makes a mass murder.
The court has certainly been asked to weigh in on the issue before, they declined to do so. This is typical for the supreme court. And yes, I'm aware of the rhetoric: "Now that we have decided something to be true, it has always been true." And in the future when/if they change it again, it will have always been true then as well.
Holy Crap! I nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize!
The violent liberal Bernie Bro who attacked people with a rifle this morning? The FBI says that more people are beaten to death every year with pipes, baseball bats, and bare hands then are killed with any sort of long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc) and that includes hunting accidents, suicides and the rest.
What scares them about long-guns is that a guy with a rifle can kill a VIP from a distance with no warning from a concealed position. They could care less about blacks killing each other with pistols in the inner-cities.
It would be nearly impossible to get near enough to a high-level VIP with a competent security detail to use a pistol effectively. Someone could be 300-400 yards or more distant and have an excellent chance for a kill-shot on a VIP with a security detail, using a 'scoped rifle. Soros must sweat like a pig every time he has to be outside in the open.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"You have no idea if this guy wasn't a paid repub false flag trump lover."
Makes perfect sense. He knew decades ago Trump would become President one day! How could I have not seen it! And he PRETENDED to vote D in election after election! And years of social media supporting far left ideology! Those darn "repubs" are so smart!
While it's convenient for gun clubs to pretend that the Amendment was about something other than the National Guard it's really just a convenient lie.
The guy was over 60 as well - take a look at the 2nd Amendment and you'll see he's outside the age range defined.
Indeed, it's explicitly there to arm the State.
Oh you meant something else? Some sort of self-destruct button for the State? How about you actually read the thing and keep the National Guard in mind instead of whatever lies Oliver North at the NRA is telling you.
Unless you are serving the State in the role of a member of the Militia then you are not in the Militia.
You are a citizen that can be called for the role but you are not in the role.
This is all utterly irrelevant to gun ownership anyway otherwise you'd have to give up your guns when you hit the maximum age for a member of the Militia.
“You could not run a coal company without machine guns” Richard Mellon
For one you seem to assume voter statistics as significant for the whole population. With voter turn ut as low as it is, and I would assume voter turnout amongst murderers are even lower as I think your assumption of lower than average income is correct, then the statistical significance of the numbers are dubious at best.
Australian Shooter here with my humble opinion (take it or leave it!)
The gun laws here keep the honest guys honest, but it won't solve the problem America has that all these rifles are still out there in circulation, and easy to get.
Our gun laws prevent a lot of rifles that could do this from entering circulation. This has only happened through a massive buy back and gun control over the past 20 years, as well as making it just enough of a pain to go through the hoops to gun ownership, especially for automatic rifles.
With the reluctance of US citizens handing them over due to your second amendment, I really think it wont work... well not for decades at best.
Having so many gun owners with concealed carry permits etc. means there are other things that don't happen over there. I would say that any major terrorism plot would be cut down a lot due to the high level of personal gun ownership, as well as carry/concealed carry permits. Knowing full well that (in some states) one in 10 people could shoot you if you tried something, would make it hardly worthwhile.
So what is wrong with the people committing these acts? What drives people to go that crazy that they will take another life? The gun enables them to do it easily, but the crazy is always there. I wish here was an easy solution.
You also saw a LOT of news about Trump supporters attacking, beating, vandalizing or intimidating people of various ethnicities or ideologies.
Your memory is not serving you correctly. To prove this to yourself you could try to come up with a list of incidents. When you start googling around, you will notice that most incidents are, in fact, against Trump supporters. The real question is, why memories such as yours are so prevalent.
A person hunts down people who disagrees with ... your outrage ought to be at the person and those who promote such cause ...
But that would take a non-zero amount of humanity.
There's a web site that lists them.
Some of the stories turned out to be real though, but I don't know which ones. That's one of the problems with crying wolf.
This. For once, maybe look at how other civilised countries deal with guns. Ireland, for example, makes it extremely difficult for a civilian to own a gun, so nobody does. There are still murders carried out using illegally-held guns, and many people in Ireland would be of the opinion that there is a gun problem there. Yet, the number of gun-related deaths per capita is ten times lower in Ireland than the US. Could it be that the difficulty in obtaining firearms has some sort of effect on their availability to criminals? Crazy thought, I know.
So. Is that what they did and expected to do in the 1780s and 1790s? No.
Just think about what you're saying. The second A was clearly written to prevent the government from taking away your firearms (such as the King of England did in the English Civil War).
Read the different state constitutions. Read the Federalist Papers. Notice that we had over 100 years where the idea of private gun ownership was so ingrained that there weren't judicial cases regarding them. (Just as there aren't about the 3rd).
We had an armed insurrection with 1000s of men under arms (Shays Rebellion) and private gun ownership was never an issue.
You're wrong. But keep fighting this battle. Keep up the good fight.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Then why isn't it reported on national news? Because it didnt' happen?
Shocking, socialist thieves murdering other socialist thieves!
Like you would know anything, at all about history. You're just a Russian rape-baby who's been fed propaganda your entire life.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
In response to threats, actual assaults, and encouragements from the Left for the Left to instigate and expand
Nice.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If you think I am wrong than how about stating something actually relevant to the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries to show it?
"To prove this to yourself you could try to come up with a list of incidents."
Here's an old post of mine contemporary to the 2016 election. It's not excursively fake reports -- but it includes them. My memory is fine.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Kohath's "fakehatecrimes" citation lists others.
"most incidents are, in fact, against Trump supporters. "
What did you say before? Oh yeah... "Your memory is not serving you correctly. To prove this to yourself you could try to come up with a list of incidents." I haven't heard of any trump supporters falsely reporting attacks or intimidation by Clinton supporters.. Maybe you can refresh your memory and list some?
Since I don't watch or read Fox or Infowars, I'd not have seen it there anyway. NY Times, Washtington Post, Washington Times, Denver Post - phhht. Not to mention UK"s telegraph, times, The Jerusalem Post, the Toronto Globe and Mail - no I couldn't possibly have missed it. But wait, a policeman stopped a car doing 120 mph in a 70mph, it must be sexism that caused this! News at 11. Meanwhile you creatures have been advocating assasinating the President. But that's perfectly okay because after all, you people just FEEL so strongly. Crawl back under a rock, please, and stay there.
True. However there have been many instances abroad where people go nuts (terrorists and otherwise) using knives. Do you think this was because they like to use knives, or was it because they couldn't easily get their hands on a gun in that particular country due to gun control laws? Now do you think if those afore mentioned crazies were able to get their hands on guns, would the carnage be more, or less?
There has been a couple recent cases of this in England. Did their stricter laws prevent more incidents from happening? Who knows, maybe not. However it is pretty hard to argue that the severity of the incident wasn't lower as a result.
You have a right to defend yourself and your property.
And armed citizenry is the last check and balance against an oppressive government. (Notice that blacks weren't allowed to defend themselves. You think there would have been so many beatings and lynches if guns appeared in the windows trained at all those nice white-cloaked men in pointy hats?
The second reason is less important than the first in a civil society. And yet there are many, many people who argue that one does not have a right to defend oneself; that the responsibility lies solely with the state. And yet, the Supreme Court says the state isn't obligated or responsible for protecting you.
Those first two reasons are the philosophical underpinnings of the 2nd A. They held true in the 18th C and they hold true today.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Obviously the pregnant teens were causing all the violent crime... A pregnant teen with a gun is dangerous indeed! Target them for gun control, and boom, problem solved!
Though seriously, there could be a link economically where many pregnant teens lack support, and probably poor desperate people might be more inclined to turn to violence when they perceive they have no other alternatives...
Thank dog for liberal incompetence!
I bet he was praying about the time he realized the cops were ready to blow his little pea-brains out. No atheists in foxholes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
After Reagan lost what, exactly?
So you get it. Good.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
AFAWK... this was not a gun free zone.
If it remains that way, this would be only the second mass shooting with more than 3 casualties to occur in a non-gun free zone in the last 30 years.
While it's not legal to conceal a rifle in Virginia, it is legal to carry a concealed pistol (with permit).
What we do know though... is that a couple of good guys with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun.
DC has no reciprocity with Virginia and the Safe Passage part of the misnamed Firearm Owners Protection Act does not apply. Further under federal law, open carry without a permit issued by the state of Virginia is unlawful in Virginia no matter what Virginia law says.
So this event in Virginia was effectively a gun free zone. The only way a civilian could have had a firearm legally would be if they had a Virginia carry permit and had not left or planned to travel into DC.
You, paraphrased:
shitty laws stopped people returning fire and preventing a massacre
Reality: People on the scene returned fire and prevented a massacre.
Really, of all the fucking examples of 'innocent disarmed victims' available you had to go full retard on the one occasion nobody was innocent, people were armed and there were no fatal victims.
Truly a debating masterclass, thank you.
The right belongs to 'the people', if they had meant 'the militia' they would have written that. They clearly knew the word, having used it earlier in the sentence.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What are you even saying, you just argued against yourself. Virginia is an open carry state but if the police detail hadn't been there no one would have stopped this asshole. The myth of good guy citizens with guns stopping bad guys with guns is just that, a myth.
The cynic in me says it's always politics, unless the shooter agrees with my politics, then it must a different reason.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
WHAT shootings from insane right-wingers? Really?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
looks like about 1964, when they were supporting Barry Goldwater.
LOL !! This comment needs more attention! NAOW PEOPLE! mod this shit up.
Iconically, that's a position the left and the right both agree on.
Log in or piss off.
Fakenews much? 22 of the post election attacks were false flags by liberals, many have been arrested for filing false police reports. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
Sure keep trying that none-sense that democrats and republicans switched sides to cover up the fact that Democrats have been on the wrong side of history the majority of the time for their entire existence.
Thank you for trying anyway.
It's a start. Maybe in a few years you'll be able to think for yourself since that's slightly more than regurgitating Oliver North's NRA propaganada
Isn't that effectively what I said?
Everybody no matter who in life should be armed. if EVERYONE had guns, the few people like this guy would think twice about their actions
Yes. Perhaps you should try reading the entire thing and try understanding the context instead of taking Oliver North's word for it. The NRA has gone utterly psycho ever since they put that traitor in one of the leading roles in what should be a rifle club and not a political bunch calling for the overthrow of government.
The second amendment is not a deliberate self destruct button of the USA no matter how many times the NRA keep trying to tell you that - and this is all utterly irrelevant to the discussion since the shooter was far too old to be defined as part of the Militia anyway.
Had you added that with the amount of bureaucratic filing time needed, it would give somebody the time needed to figure out whether they truly wanted to kill their self or not, this could have been the best suicide advocacy argument ever.
Since we share our alma mater, I would say that when Jesse Helms switched from Democrat to Republican would be a good timeframe for when Democrats and Republicans fully switched. But it wasn't overnight and you know it. It was a gradual transition.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
That is a bunch of nonsense, there is nothing to do with the GOP there.
Fascists and Nazis get listed, but those are Left ideologies - socialists, national socialists. Oh sure, they're to the "right" of Communism, but still in the progressive camp. White Supremacists doesn't get you very far away from the Nazis so there is nothing much anywhere close to the GOP. It is actually kind of funny to think that someone is trying to pin "racism" on the party formed to free the slaves, and that fought segregation. Not even the "anti-government" stuff gets close. The GOP is for limited government, fiscal responsibility (at least officially), and personal liberty, not an absence of government.
Misconstruing Mussolini
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt
British Fascists To the Left
More on the BNP’s success at stealing labor votes. Here are some wonderful posts about the BNP by Daniel Hannan. For instance:
Incidentally, any BBC presenters reading this, why do you keep calling the party “far Right”? Weren’t you listening to Nick Griffin’s acceptance speech? He wasn’t going to talk about immigration policy he said, since everyone knew where he stood on the subject. No, his priority was to expose the way in which public assets had been privatised. Look at the BNP’s manifesto: it wants nationalisation, subsidy, higher taxes, protectionism and (sotto voce) the abolition of the monarchy. And look at where its votes came from. The BNP is a symptom of Labour’s collapse.
Plus readers might remember his interview with Vox Day:
VD:One thing that tends to confuse Americans is that the British National Party is not very popular despite holding what appear to be populist views on immigration and the European Union. Why do they enjoy so little support compared to the three major parties?
DH:Because they are, contrary to the way they are described in the BBC, a party of the far left. They’re in favor of nationalization, they’re in favor of protectionism, they want workers’ councils to run industry, they want a massive state program of rebuilding manufacture. Like Hayek said about the socialist roots of Nazism, they are a national socialist party and the socialist bit is very important to them. Plus, there is a line, a very important line in politics, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. And they’ve crossed that line.
VD: In a certain respect, they really are fascists, but in the Italian Fascist sense.
DH: Yeah. I think most of these so-called “far right” parties are on the left by any normal definition. It’s a brilliant media trick in Europe to always refer to them as “the far right”. The target of that is the mainstream right. Every time you read about the BNP in the press, it’s always prefaced with “the far right BNP”, as though they were like us, but more so, which is the opposite of the case. When somebody reads that, it doesn’t make them think any worse of the BNP, it makes them think worse of the right. Which, of course, is why they do it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"No Nazi. Not a Nazi. You're the Nazi, for pointing out my goddamn swastika flag."
You are welcome on my lawn.
Your claim is a lie, and a stupid one at that even if it is commonly attempted by some parts of the political spectrum. How did you come to believe such nonsense? .
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I would never point out anything so obvious, .... or your love for theatre. ;)
You're probably a beer and pretzel man.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Militia remains irrelevant. Plain english and settled law.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
To the 2nd amendment?
Wonderful how it's relevant when a political group disguised as a sporting club want it to be and irrelevant when it's not - it's like magic!
Maybe I should just give up on teasing you idiots that like to pretend that a useful tool is a combined penis and flag substitute and turns even those far too cowardly to sign up to defend their country into real soldiers. The irony of having a traitor like Oliver North leading all this bullshit is icing on the cake.
Was I that unclear? Isn't that pretty much exactly what I said?
Doesn't this statement indicate that:
" they either couldn't be verified or turned out to be out-right fakes by folks on the "other side" who felt they needed to lie or stage fake hate because... TRUMP."
I'm thinking people are just reading like a single sentence and then stop: "You also saw a LOT of news about Trump supporters attacking, beating, vandalizing or intimidating people of various ethnicities or ideologies"
" #fake_news #fake_news #fake_news from you Sir."
Sigh... #read_everything_before_spouting_off to you sir.
"In response to threats, actual assaults, and encouragements from the Left for the Left to instigate and expand" Citations please.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/01/...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
For two. More?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
antifa planned it and admitted it was them??? this isnt hard
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
... you Amerians have a serious social problem with firearms, I post this (parent) comment and get tons of "foes" on slashdot and not a single argumentative response, are you lot completely incapable of engaging in rational discussion of this topic? Or do you settle everything with guns instead... oh there's no guns here so FOE button me to death like I give a shit.
If I interpret your argument correctly you are saying firearms preserve your freedoms and undesirable deaths are the price? But how can you explain the massive erosion of freedoms in your country over the last century? Surely that's not attributed to what little gun control there is? I'm not saying my county is any more free but I don't see how guns would help in all but the worst and most unstable state of governance.
No, I am not saying that - but they can help preserve your freedom, or cost you your freedom.
I don't know if you're a native English speaker and most native speakers don't get this right.
You live, most likely, in a free society. Your movements aren't restricted. You can do anything you want, for the most part. However, there are penalties.
You are free to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If you try to kill me, I have the right to defend myself.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yeh, right maybe in the twisted fucked up minds of US gun nuts, in civilised countries we just laugh at your stupidity, and your alt facts.
Then you should laugh at gun control people who play the bait and switch, talking about crime and mass murder and then say that the US has 30,000+ gun deaths per year. Ooops 2/3 of that are suicides.
.411 445 375 352 ..485 522 444 424 ..1,782 1,920 1,897 1,836 .9 2 10 2 .134 125 86 98
Now, if the US had a higher suicide rate than Japan, or Taiwan, or France or England or Germany then, and only then, it may make sense to include those numbers. But the US doesn't have a higher suicide rate therefore this is an example of gun control advocates LYING.
Second point - 2% of the US counties are responsible for over 1/2 of the gun violence in the US
https://crimeresearch.org/2017...
And, if you break this down further, you'll find that it's only parts of those counties accounts for the violence Third point - there is no correlation between more guns in a state and more gun violence.
- US counties with high guns per capita have violence rates equal to bucolic countryside European towns.
- As guns became easier to get in Florida (and other states) gun violence went down (contrary to the predictions of gun control people).
- As guns became more numerous in the US gun violence has gone down (contrary to the predictions of gun control people).
Fourth point - Gun control people are not focusing on people who use guns while committing a crime. They are focusing on gun ownership. Rifles are always their target and yet they used in 5% of the gun crimes.
More deaths are done with knives than rifles. (See below - from US Statistical Abstract)
More deaths are caused by hammers and other blunt objects than by rifles.(See below)
More deaths are caused by fists and feet than by rifles. (See below)
Characteristic 2000 2005 2008 2009
Total firearms. . . . . . 8,661 10,158 9,484 9,203
Handguns. . . . . . . 6,778 7,565 6,755 6,503
Rifles. . . . . . . . . .
Shotguns. . . . . .
Other not specified or type unknown. . . . . . 53 138 79 96 Firearms,
type not stated. . . 934 1,488 1,831 1,828
Knives or cutting instruments. . . . .
Blunt objects 1. . . . . . 617 608 614 623
Personal weapons 2. . 927 905 861 815
Poison. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 10 7
Explosives. . . . . .
Fire. . . . . . . . . . .
These are not "alt-facts"
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu...
https://www.census.gov/prod/20...
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond