Mass Shootings

[Nivek 16953]

40 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

The easy end-a-round to this is to prohibit the sale of ammo for those weapon systems.   Chamber it in .556 or .223 then that ammo is gone.  Chamber it in .308, bye Felicia.  Or restrict the ammo to be purchased by only people over 35 who cannot purchase more than 100 bullets per calendar year.   No fucking amendments about ammo. 

[Brisketexan 105192]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 No fucking amendments about ammo. 

The stupid thing is that there is also no amendment about GUNS.  Only one noun is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  That noun is "arms."  That is the ONLY noun.

"Arms" (in this context) means "weapons and ammunition; armaments."  That means....everything.  From muskets to ARs to artillery to F-35s to Hellfire missiles to nuclear missiles.  That's the ultra-mega indefensibly stupid thing about the "reasoning" in Bruen.  IF you are to apply the reasoning of Bruen the way that Thomas wrote and plainly intended, then we have NO "historical practice" from back in 1789 of regulating or prohibiting the private ownership of a wing of jet fighters armed with cluster bombs.  Thus, any law purporting to regulate same is unconstitutional.

OR....they could have taken the sane approach, and realized that like any law written in 1789, it has to be interpreted through a lens that allows consideration of how things have changed.  In 1789, you could own a weapon that could fire one shot at a time and then required reloading, allowing a militia unit to engage another unit of combatants.  You could NOT own a weapon that allowed you to fire 30 rounds without reloading, then slap in another mag in 1.5 seconds and do it all over again (as just one example).  You also couldn't own an F-35, or a Hellfire missile because, again, they didn't exist.  The regulation of such "arms" was not contemplated by the 2nd amendment because they didn't exist.  And the balancing thought involved in allowing private ownership of firearms (that is, the risk that having firearms out and among the public) was much, much, MUCH lower in 1789, based on the "arms" tech of the time.

This is all so fucking dumb.  All of it. 

[Texas Jeff 1945]

... a well-regulated militia ...

[jimmyjazz 46012]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The stupid thing is that there is also no amendment about GUNS.

<snip>

 

I agree with your interpretation of the founding fathers' perspective.  Beyond that, I don't think most modern 2A fanatics actually support wholly unfettered rights to possess any weapon imaginable.  Most would argue against the "right" to possess a dirty nuke, but God forbid anyone suggest we draw the line on the other side of high-capacity, high-rate weapons like the AR-15, etc.

Frankly, I am saddened when I see people I know to be thoughtful and intelligent failing to grasp the logic in disallowing such weapons.  It just further hints at the gun cult and how pervasive that attitude is.

[Huckleberry 33057]

2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:

I disagree as did the framers. they believed well-trained and properly armed citizen militias were vital to defend against “natives, armed factions, and foreign invaders”. They’d even store arms and powder in an armory.

They were reacting to king restrictions against armed militias. Kings were wanting to control regions and allow arms to only the ones they trusted.

Other facts of the day:

>A citizen who refused to serve in a militia would have no gun rights.
>the constitution codifies calling up militias against armed insurrections (dispels the notion that they intended citizen arms to intimidate their politicians)

You don't disagree with me on any of that. But the second amendment does not say that you have to be in a militia to bear arms. I've said it before, but it's very clear language even if written differently than we would today. 

Because militias are necessary for freedom, no laws can be made outlawing the right to bear arms.

That's what it says. And that sentence in no way requires militia membership. It's the same as this: 

Because reproduction is necessary for the continuance of society, no law outlawing sexual intercourse can be enacted.

That does not mean you have to be reproducing to have sex. Like I said, that's not how the language works. 

[mdmost 43014]

Just have to get over this fact of life.

 

[Nivek 16953]

The stupid thing is that there is also no amendment about GUNS.  Only one noun is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  That noun is "arms."  That is the ONLY noun.
"Arms" (in this context) means "weapons and ammunition; armaments."  That means....everything.  From muskets to ARs to artillery to F-35s to Hellfire missiles to nuclear missiles.  That's the ultra-mega indefensibly stupid thing about the "reasoning" in Bruen.  IF you are to apply the reasoning of Bruen the way that Thomas wrote and plainly intended, then we have NO "historical practice" from back in 1789 of regulating or prohibiting the private ownership of a wing of jet fighters armed with cluster bombs.  Thus, any law purporting to regulate same is unconstitutional.
OR....they could have taken the sane approach, and realized that like any law written in 1789, it has to be interpreted through a lens that allows consideration of how things have changed.  In 1789, you could own a weapon that could fire one shot at a time and then required reloading, allowing a militia unit to engage another unit of combatants.  You could NOT own a weapon that allowed you to fire 30 rounds without reloading, then slap in another mag in 1.5 seconds and do it all over again (as just one example).  You also couldn't own an F-35, or a Hellfire missile because, again, they didn't exist.  The regulation of such "arms" was not contemplated by the 2nd amendment because they didn't exist.  And the balancing thought involved in allowing private ownership of firearms (that is, the risk that having firearms out and among the public) was much, much, MUCH lower in 1789, based on the "arms" tech of the time.
This is all so fucking dumb.  All of it. 

Fair, but I didn’t want to dive into the weeds of it with a Lobo-like post, and took their silly argument at face value. Plus I don’t want to see gravy seals walking around with Bows, knives, and Swords, which are fucking regulated. Or maybe I do. Lightning bolt, lightning bolt, lightning bolt!

[Nivek 16953]

 
I agree with your interpretation of the founding fathers' perspective.  Beyond that, I don't think most modern 2A fanatics actually support wholly unfettered rights to possess any weapon imaginable.  Most would argue against the "right" to possess a dirty nuke, but God forbid anyone suggest we draw the line on the other side of high-capacity, high-rate weapons like the AR-15, etc.
Frankly, I am saddened when I see people I know to be thoughtful and intelligent failing to grasp the logic in disallowing such weapons.  It just further hints at the gun cult and how pervasive that attitude is.

Which is why I want to hold a gun give away of AR15s outside of Mosques and Black Greeks. It scared the shit out of Tahoes and got the first ban put in place.

[locodos 5388]

35 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Just have to get over this fact of life.

 

Thank god we don't pay them very well, otherwise everyone would want that job!

[wildcat09 29362]

56 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You don't disagree with me on any of that. But the second amendment does not say that you have to be in a militia to bear arms. I've said it before, but it's very clear language even if written differently than we would today. 

Because militias are necessary for freedom, no laws can be made outlawing the right to bear arms.

That's what it says. And that sentence in no way requires militia membership. It's the same as this: 

Because reproduction is necessary for the continuance of society, no law outlawing sexual intercourse can be enacted.

That does not mean you have to be reproducing to have sex. Like I said, that's not how the language works. 

That's not what it says though. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

I don't really disagree with your interpretation of the language using today's grammatical rules, but language then just didn't work the same way it does now. Grammar in colonial America was a mess. And it's very clear from the actual history of firearm regulation in America that nobody interpreted the 2nd Amendment that way.

 

[TeeDubya 3362]

The gun is America’s Moloch….

ref Leviticus 18, 20
 

”The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch”

https://www.nybooks.com/online/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

“Molochism is the one religion that can never be separated from the state. The state itself bows down to Moloch, and protects the sacrifices made to him. So let us celebrate the falling bodies and rising statues as a demonstration of our fealty, our bondage, to the great god Gun.”

 

[Texas Jeff 1945]

Starting from this, written during a time when we were a frontier nation without radios, telephones or the most powerful military in the history of the world:

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.

We have made it to this, just in 2024 and this is just a sampling from this year:

At least four people were killed and nine others were wounded in a shooting at Apalachee High School. A 14 year old male suspect was taken into custody.

A 20 year old man opened fire on former President of the United States Donald Trump during a rally from a nearby rooftop, killing an audience member and wounding Trump and two other audience members. The shooter was killed by Secret Service personnel.

A 42-year-old man from another county randomly shot nine people including two children at the Brooklands Plaza Splash Pad before driving to his home and shooting himself.

Gunfire erupted during a parade at Kansas City Union Station to celebrate the Kansas City Chiefs winning Super Bowl LVIII. At least one person was killed and more than twenty others were injured. Three male suspects were detained, two of whom are juveniles and one of whom was shot.

A 17-year-old male opened fire at Perry High School, killing one student and injuring seven others, including a school administrator, before committing suicide. The principal of the school, who was wounded during the incident, died from his wounds ten days later on January 14.

And on and on and on.   Militias everywhere it seems.  Well regulated.  It's all about securing our free state.  Thoughts and prayers.  Now is not the time.

Edited September 6 by Texas Jeff

[Willfully Horn 8042]

Folks, I’d argue that this country’s security is shit. Kids being shot in their schools on the reg should have told us that. We no longer think security is necessary.

[LCHorn 2628]

I thought this NY Times comment was remarkably spot on:

Quote

trevorson

Melbourne, Australia23m ago

 

From a distance, and with all the limits of insight that come from being outside the culture, it seems to me from the other side of the world, that 2nd amendment rights are symbolic of a deep and ongoing distrust of the public institutions charged with running the country. The right to bear arms is held by many to be a form of ongoing vigilance against the kinds of perceived complacency that might make the people vulnerable to institutional corruption.
 

It's easy for this thinkingto develop, with some encouragement by parties who might benefit politically and economically, into an obsessive form of anxiety that rationalizes the ownership of military style weapons as just and righteous.
 

Gun cabinets in houses across the US will continue to be stocked with these weapons, accessible by children who are home schooled in this world view, for as long as significant numbers of the culture believe it's their duty to be "standing by", and that gun violence is a solution to an existential problem. Add the burgeoning mental health issues we're seeing in successive generations of young people and we have fertile conditions for these kinds of devastating mass shooting events.
 

The solutions are going to be as complex as the causes, and it's going to require extraordinary leadership to address and reform. I'm interested to see who has the courage to take it on. In the meantime, my thoughts are with the families of those caught quite literally in the crossfire.

 

 

 

[TexArcher 37998]

What kind of fucking moronic piece of shit idiot gives a gun to a 14-year-old kid?

God damn.  Kids using their own shirts to try to stop their teacher's bleeding, and failing.  How does anyone let this keep happening?

[Satchel 6939]

“Childs” in Georgia can legally possess long guns:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-school-shooting-gun/

 

Georgia law prohibits minors from possessing handguns, but there is no minimum age to possess a rifle or shotgun in Georgia. The state also has few restrictions for adults who wish to carry firearms. 

 

[Mo Horn 8853]

Today Kemp gave the standard politician's answer about guns when he said this is not the time to talk about the politics of guns, yada, yada, yada. Then someone please tell me when the right time to talk about it, because it's never the right time. I wish some reporter would ask, every day, is today the day to talk about guns? Just so fucking frustrating. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26520]

22 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

Or, the kid could have done what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, operating a couple of 9mm semi-automatics and shotguns.

Keep in mind that this was during the period of the 94 assault weapons ban, and the AR-15 wasn't popular or widespread at that time.

 But - they were both understood to be mentally ill and violent by their families and local law enforcement, prior to the Columbine massacre and were nevertheless given access to the firearms they used to carry out the slaughter by adults. Sound familiar?

I don't care about the AR platform. But the AR-15 is involved in something around 2% of all gun deaths and pursuing the fantasy discourse about a ban actively prevents workable reforms that would save lives. It's just not worth the political capital.

Edited September 7 by Bozo_Casanova

[aggie08 21513]

22 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Don't forget the "argument" that gun nuts and Republicans try to make in these situations. 

If future AR-15 sales were banned, this kid could have "easily" purchased this weapon illegally. This 14 year old boy could have found an illegal arms dealer who would have sold him an AR-15. He could have rode his bike into some sketchy area, and met with an older stranger that would happily sell a weapon of war to an adolescent, for an amount of cash that the kid would obviously be able to afford. These transactions are pleasant and safe, and nothing would stop a child from trying to obtain one. 

 

What gets me is that, had the Uvalde shooter been forced to find an illegal gun dealer at 18 years old (using Craigslist, I guess?), the gun dealing criminal probably would have said, "hell no, you're immediately going to do something stupid with these guns and bring heat onto me and my business." But the guy behind the counter at the gun store he walked into had no issue whatsoever selling to him.

Edited September 7 by aggie08

[wildcat09 29362]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Or, the kid could have done what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did, operating a couple of 9mm semi-automatics and shotguns.

Keep in mind that this was during the period of the 94 assault weapons ban, and the AR-15 wasn't popular or widespread at that time.

 But - they were both understood to be mentally ill and violent by their families and local law enforcement, prior to the Columbine massacre and were nevertheless given access to the firearms they used to carry out the slaughter by adults. Sound familiar?

I don't care about the AR platform. But the AR-15 is involved in something around 2% of all gun deaths and pursuing the fantasy discourse about a ban actively prevents workable reforms that would save lives. It's just not worth the political capital.

Another thing about Harris and Klebold that the media intentionally ignored in the 90s is that they were very obviously Nazis. It’s wild that so much media coverage ended up being about what music they listened to and not about how they were obviously huge fans of Hitler.

Edited September 7 by wildcat09

[G650 14273]

I miss a good old fashioned Satanic Panic

[Underdog 28762]

And a Satanic Mechanic... 

[tx 3 putt 77274]

 

[mdmost 43014]

Yes, it's due to the human heart. The heart of people so enthralled with guns and so horny to have the ability to rip the flesh off of others that they lose all common sense. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

America has too many human hearts. 

[ohchaucer 1443]

America has too many human hearts. 

Four fewer now.

[elfenix 34331]

Quote

A manhunt is underway for at least one suspect after several people were shot Saturday near an interstate in a rural area of Laurel County, Kentucky, located south of Lexington, according to the sheriff’s office.

The active shooter situation occurred near Interstate 75, about nine miles north of the city of London, where “numerous persons have been shot,” said the Laurel County Sheriff’s Office.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/07/us/kentucky-interstate-75-shooting/index.html

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The Aztecs knew how to do it.  Sure, they were into human sacrifice but they didn’t kill in warfare… And the sacrifices were a celebratory affair.  No mass shooters in Montezuma’s kingdom. 

[Underdog 28762]

22 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/07/us/kentucky-interstate-75-shooting/index.html

Taking that UK loss a little too hard. 

Edited September 8 by Underdog

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2046]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

I don’t wish death on these people but I do wish they could get shot up enough to maybe change their minds. I’m a teacher. Fuck the republicans and it is fucking time for legislation. 

[Satchel 6939]

3 hours ago, elfenix said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/07/us/kentucky-interstate-75-shooting/index.html

If only all those who were shot by the sniper lurking in the woods had been armed, this never would have happened, because of the good guy with a gun stuff.

[elfenix 34331]

3 hours ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

I don’t wish death on these people but I do wish they could get shot up enough to maybe change their minds. I’m a teacher. Fuck the republicans and it is fucking time for legislation. 

steve scalise says hi

[WhatTheBuck 28795]

7 hours ago, elfenix said:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/07/us/kentucky-interstate-75-shooting/index.html

“The spasm of gun violence erupted just days after a mass shooting left four people dead and nine others hospitalized at a high school in Winder, Georgia — and less than a week after a half-dozen people driving on an interstate in the Seattle area were injured by a spree shooter.”

First I’m hearing about the shootings in the Seattle area. Mass shootings happen all the time in this country. Most of them we never hear about. A stat I saw on Thursday said there have been 385 mass shootings so far this year. It’s at least 386 now. Probably more since they happen more than once a day. 

[TexPx 2323]

 

Not the right time? Ok. So when is the right time to talk about legislation?

[DDD Dad 14346]

35 minutes ago, TexPx said:

Not the right time? Ok. So when is the right time to talk about legislation?

Narrator: never

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

12 hours ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

I don’t wish death on these people but I do wish they could get shot up enough to maybe change their minds. I’m a teacher. Fuck the republicans and it is fucking time for legislation. 

Thank you for your service.

Edited September 8 by Hugo Stiglitz

[cactusflinthead 27601]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

“The spasm of gun violence erupted just days after a mass shooting left four people dead and nine others hospitalized at a high school in Winder, Georgia — and less than a week after a half-dozen people driving on an interstate in the Seattle area were injured by a spree shooter.”

First I’m hearing about the shootings in the Seattle area. Mass shootings happen all the time in this country. Most of them we never hear about. A stat I saw on Thursday said there have been 385 mass shootings so far this year. It’s at least 386 now. Probably more since they happen more than once a day. 

I gave a current number for the year when one of these incidents happened a few years ago. Johnny Sack was quick to dismiss the number. 3 bodies are not enough for it to be a mass shooting. Gang or street violence shouldn't count either. 

Funny how his screen handle became such a burden he had to adopt a new one. Perhaps he has a better appreciation for his fellow human beings but I'm skeptical. fatty doesn't give a shit about anyone outside of his own circle. Trash. Trash humans undeserving of the free lunch, scholarships, job training, or any other social services. Why would he be concerned about 3 randos shot in a drive by? Doesn't matter if one of them was a toddler. Trash humans. 

That's what I was told the last time he graced us with his witty banter.

[jimmyjazz 46012]

6 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

I gave a current number for the year when one of these incidents happened a few years ago. Johnny Sack was quick to dismiss the number. 3 bodies are not enough for it to be a mass shooting. Gang or street violence shouldn't count either. 

Funny how his screen handle became such a burden he had to adopt a new one. Perhaps he has a better appreciation for his fellow human beings but I'm skeptical. fatty doesn't give a shit about anyone outside of his own circle. Trash. Trash humans undeserving of the free lunch, scholarships, job training, or any other social services. Why would he be concerned about 3 randos shot in a drive by? Doesn't matter if one of them was a toddler. Trash humans. 

That's what I was told the last time he graced us with his witty banter.

Can someone please create a spreadsheet of all the socks?

[royiv 9333]

On 9/7/2024 at 7:42 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't care about the AR platform. But the AR-15 is involved in something around 2% of all gun deaths and pursuing the fantasy discourse about a ban actively prevents workable reforms that would save lives. It's just not worth the political capital.

That’s not what prevents workable reforms. Don’t kid yourself. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26520]

10 minutes ago, royiv said:

That’s not what prevents workable reforms. Don’t kid yourself. 

Pause for a moment and realize that you are asserting that this is the single intractable issue that isn’t consumed with symbolic identity signifiers promoted by entrenched interests. Do I have you right?

again- if you could take all the AR-15s off the street by tomorrow morning, it’s a rounding error, because math. 

Edited September 8 by Bozo_Casanova

[crash_davis 23114]

[Underdog 28762]

20 hours ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

I don’t wish death on these people 

I do. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21209]

1 minute ago, Underdog said:

I do. 

[DaysOff 7966]

I've come to be of the opinion that people clinging to and fetishizing military style weapons has to be the most bizarrely American thing ever.

That and 70 million dollar high school football stadiums.

[Anastasis 23481]

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

Didn’t they have like mass graves filled with indigenous children? Fucking Canadians. 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Didn’t they have like mass graves filled with indigenous children? Fucking Canadians. 

Well, those weren't shootings, just mass malnutrition and beatings.  The hosers are in the clear on this one.  

[Anastasis 23481]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Well, those weren't shootings, just mass malnutrition and beatings.  The hosers are in the clear on this one.  

“We don’t have dead kids”. I mean that’s the quote. 

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2046]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Didn’t they have like mass graves filled with indigenous children? Fucking Canadians. 

 

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

“We don’t have dead kids”. I mean that’s the quote. 

Apologies for not using the preset agreed upon sarcasm font.  

[Anastasis 23481]

People are generally very bad at assessing risk. American high schools are extremely safe. The back seat of an automobile is an exponentially more dangerous space. A kid given ibuprofen or Tylenol had more risk exposure. We absolutely need to address the problems here. But some reality based calibration is also good.