OT: Reporter and camerman shot on live tv in Virginia
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
The other plus is he only killed two people. He was so full of hate it is lucky he didn't take out 15 people. He recorded it on his cell phone he didn't have a gopro.
If I were having a discussion of how to deal with gun violence, I'd ask a bunch of questions. One of them would be about why the measures we've taken haven't reduced gun violence significantly (or, maybe, in fact, they have, which would be useful information. Another would be why other civilized countries don't have the same level of gun violence as the U.S. and, in particular, the extent to which that's related to cultural factors and the extent it's related to laws about gun ownership. Another would be about what measures you might take to get guns out of the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them today, particularly criminals. And another would be about measures you could take to limit the likelihood that a stolen gun could be used by a criminal or that a gun would be shot accidentally.
What concerns me is that any discussion of guns devolves into something like your claim that we shouldn't make policy based on one crazy person. You're right about that, but there are a lot of crazy people and a lot of criminals and, frankly, a lot of gun owners who don't take the right precautions to prevent terrible accidents from happening. Considering that there have been more days this year with mass shooting incidents (defined as four or more people injured or killed, according to Vox) than days without mass shooting incidents, if we wait for the conversation until there hasn't been a recent crazy person shooting, we will never start it.
I look at a small portion of gun deaths because the first reply--including here--is to ban "assault weapons."
"Assault Weapons" are rifles.
I think illustrating rifle deaths compared to:
1. Total US population 130/315,000,000
2. Total deaths by gun OF ALL TYPES (including self inflicted suicide): 130/32,000 or so
3. Gun deaths not attributed to suicide: 130/11,200 or so
is relevant.
I ask again, where is the problem?
We are a gun culture. Period. To debate that is folly. Once we agree to that, we are looking at creating draconian regulation on a consumer product that as a percentage of every single category is statistically insignificant.
Sure, on every individual level these are tragedies. But when those who want to restrict rights tell a story of prevention, one must call bullshit. This guy stalked these two people. He taunted them on Twitter. He commented about them on Twitter. He called them out on Twitter. He would have killed them with a lead pipe or a Glock.
You want to make a dent in gun related deaths?
Mandatory minimum for illegal possession of handgun while committing ANY OTHER crime. 20 years.
You'll see gun related crime drop significantly.
Write your Democratic congress person with that suggestion and get back to us.
Mandatory minimum for illegal possession of handgun while committing ANY OTHER crime. 20 years.
You'll see gun related crime drop significantly.
Write your Democratic congress person with that suggestion and get back to us.
You obviously did not read the first sentence of my post. While I don't own and haven't used firearms I have no intent on restricting their ownership by others. Thanks for jumping to conclusions.
It would be more accurate to say we accept certain limitations on rights - rather than give them up. Speech is, of course, a primary example. And sometimes rights are in conflict. In these cases, reasonable people can disagree on the resolution.
Totally get your point. The hell-bent killers in Sandy, Tallahassee and Aurora would have killed just as many people with a lead pipe or knife or bow and arrows.
If those two I would lean towards the state though further thought would be required to give a confident answer and there is also the semantic issue of how individuals may act in groups. While the state protects the first amendment there are social consequences to exercising rights or of line with the positron that your family or community define as the standard. How reasonable it is to exercise your rights in the face of social pressure and consequences is up to debate and leads to a third category which certainly tempos the first two. That is the self. I'm not saying that people don't exercise their rights. For instance the fact that I often feel too old to party and no longer exercise my right to party wouldn't be an example. I'm talking about people adopting or being indoctrinated into philosophies (primarily religious) whereby they decide that rights that are available to them are not to be exercised because they are incompatible. People will often choose the theocratic oppression that we see in Saudi Arabia and the like. Those people aren't mostly oppressed. That has to be engraved by the majority to persist and there are Mullins of women in the US who deny themselves the rights protected by the state because secular rights are incompatible with the philosophy they have chosen.
No they wouldn't have.
I don't argue that every tragedy would be carried out with a different weapon. Just like you can't reasonably argue that any of them could be prevented.
What is the common thread?
My answer to the problem is not to restrict rights of the law abiding.
You can't prevent every tragedy. To suggest you can, misunderstands the very essence of protecting people--something else I know quite a bit about.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
We have a suspect here who:
Was fired in another state and filed a lawsuit
Was fired here and was visibly pissed off
He routinely saw ex co-workers around town and made comments
He was stalking these two on Social Media
You guys wanna blame the gun?
Was fired in another state and filed a lawsuit
Was fired here and was visibly pissed off
He routinely saw ex co-workers around town and made comments
He was stalking these two on Social Media
You guys wanna blame the gun?
I'm saying we aren't free to do whatever we want. I'm not talking about "Rights" as defined in the Constitution either. It has been suggested in this thread that folks have inherent rights (lowercase R) as humans.
I'm saying we aren't free to do whatever the hell we want to. I agree to abide by the laws of this country, which are tend to be restrictive by design. I have no desire to drive 150MPH on the turnpike, but I'm glad there are laws restricting those who want to. That's what I'm saying.
If you live in NJ, you wouldn't be able to get the gun used in this crime for at least 7-8 months.
Or in MA, NY, CT, MD, CA, RI...
ANDDDDDD
Unless he bought the gun from a private person--not a dealer--he would have had to undergo the background check anyway.
So what does that tell you about the background check process?
Start there before you take my rights away.
Until military drone licenses are issued to private citizens, all the guns on the ground wouldn't do much good if the government decided to start waxing people from the sky. The technology gap between the state and the most heavily armed private citizen is enormous and only growing wider. So much so, the argument of armed citizens "just in case," is completely irrelevant from here, forward.
Guns now exist to simply for use by the hunter, the hobbyist, the range shooter, the wanna be alpha males, the criminal, the paranoid and the psychotics.
Find other hobbies. Let the animal populations be managed professionally.
Lets go get the guns back.
Beyond the enormous, tragic implications for the victims and their families, it's soul crushing for the nation as a whole each and every time this happens and simply not worth preserving whatever joy the responsible gun owners may derive from owning them.
So much drama.
The first part of your argument is ridiculous. You're saying (as others have) that insurgency can't stand up in the face of modern technology.
You might want to watch the news sometime.
The rest of what you say is just drivel. Which, as I recall, is pretty typical.
Yes, cause the crushing power of the state is working in:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Syria
Libya
Egypt
Yemen
Tunisia
And your nonsense also presupposes that the military rank and file would kill fellow citizens in an attempt to take their guns away. As someone who comes from a family with more than 50 years of continuous military service, I can assure you you're wrong on the second assumption.
THAT. WILL. NEVER. HAPPEN.
Listen to the marketplace
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/26/wal-mart-stores-rifles-idUSL1N1111QK20150826
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/26/wal-mart-stores-rifles-idUSL1N1111QK20150826
If you believe that reason, I have a bridge to sell you.
Wal-Mart is on the wrong side of every issue it takes a position on.
Wow! You must live in a bubble. That statement is equally ignorant and arrogant.
hudson: I know you're trying to quell the irrational, knee-jerk anti-gun reactions, but surely there is a limit to what "arms" means with regards to the 2nd amendment. I mean would you be okay with your average Joe having access to nuclear weapons?
What would I shoot out of my submarine?
Who is talking about personal nukes?
Have you ever read anything about the intent of the 2A? It actually puts a nice bow on your question. Paraphrasing, "arms" means what one soldier could reasonably be expected to show up to his militia unit with.
Fast forwarded to today? I don't see the legality of the government regulating any rifle, handgun or shotgun. So no, I don't think my neighbors right to anti tank missiles or suitcase nukes is covered. But an AR-15? Yeah, that's covered...especially because it's mechanically no different than your grand dad's hunting rifle fitted with a box magazine. You pull the trigger it goes bang. You pull it again, it goes bang again.
Please stop. How is that question even relevant? You can't pass a background check and buy a nuclear weapon.
Have you tried to get a gun? Its probably easier to get one on the street corner than lawfully in NJ. Hows that gun control working out in camden?
Last edited:
I've made this challenge to anyone on this board before.
You get a "Assault Weapon" and I get a .308 hunting rifle with a scope and a 5 round magazine. We start at opposite ends of the concourse at HPSS. First one out wins.
The gun in these conversations is irrelevant.
But people who don't shoot don't EVER want to take even a minimum amount of time to educate themselves on what they are so very quick to suggest should be banned.
You get a "Assault Weapon" and I get a .308 hunting rifle with a scope and a 5 round magazine. We start at opposite ends of the concourse at HPSS. First one out wins.
The gun in these conversations is irrelevant.
But people who don't shoot don't EVER want to take even a minimum amount of time to educate themselves on what they are so very quick to suggest should be banned.
Too lazy to do the research but i see stats being thrown around all the time. The question I have, is the homicide rate in the US higher or lower than other leading nations? And compare that to gun violence. I would argue that people hell bent on causing crime will use a weapon, Any weapon.
Drivel? From the guy with 30,000 posts hitting refresh every minute. Pretty ironic.
And yes, the Iraqi's are really holding off the full mite of the US military. Thanks genius for pointing that out. They're giving us all we can handle, all right.
Fast forward 10 (20? 30? 50? 100?) years and there nuclear bullets. What then?
I think you don't know what "nuclear" means. Your suggestion violates fundamental physics.
I know @ruhudsonfan has already pointed this out, but if there's any part of you that genuinely feels that the "full might of the U.S. military" would turn itself on the general population of this country then you need many, many, MANY medical procedures.
4Real: You missed my point. What if in the future weapon technology -- specifically firearm/bullet technology -- advances to where lethality is exponentially more devastating than even today?
I only ask because that's exactly what happened since 2A was originally conceived.
I only ask because that's exactly what happened since 2A was originally conceived.
