Active shooter thread

[South Austin 52676]

23 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

Yeah the what ifs and fairy dust deserves nothing better. 

It's not fairy dust to argue that a mentally ill dipshit with no military training armed with a hunting rifle is going to cause a lot less damage in a school, nightclub, grocery store, etc. than the same dipshit with a high-powered assault rifle he just purchased at the arms equivalent of a 7-11 with no waiting period or background check.  And the Barney Fife's of the police force who arrive on such a scene are going to be more inclined to do their fucking jobs to subdue that kind of shooter than someone blazing away with an AR-15.

But yeah, keep pointing to Charles Whitman for why we should just stick to the status quo and every time a school is shot up we can find comfort when our leaders tell us, "well, it could've been worse."

[Longhorn_Fan68 33910]

8 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

The conspiracies have already hit social media platforms. No one is crying and green screens and parents just standing around… etc etc

These people pushing the Sandy Hook was a hoax should be held accountable in some way.

I'm fine with just shooting them. It seems to be what they want anyway

[elfenix 34369]

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

And the Barney Fife's of the police force who arrive on such a scene are going to be more inclined to do their fucking jobs to subdue that kind of shooter than someone blazing away with an AR-15.

[South Austin 52676]

^And that's fair.

[Anastasis 23486]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Nevermind that the court used a poorly written state law - their minors in possession of long guns statute - to defuse a federal law. The judge's argument was that "well since we can't charge rittenhouse for illegally possessing a gun, that means the straw purchase is not prosecutable". Which is horseshit. 

I am not sure that it should be framed as state law defusing federal law. Black was actually charged under a Wisconsin state law related to straw purchases, and was not prosecuted by the feds for lying on the 4473.  There is nothing stopping the feds from doing so right now.  It's pretty clear that Black lied on item 21a.  

35 minutes ago, B00M said:

ATF investigated like 13k cases in 2017 to get 12 convictions?

And there is an order of magnitude more denials that are clear indications of lying on the 4473.  The investigation rate is about 10% and the prosecution rate among those investigated ~ 0.1%. The effective prosecution/violation rate is somewhere closer to 0.01%.  Instead of prosecuting these violations, the ATF typically sends out letters.  Here is a GAO report on the issue: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440  

[Guest]

You can watch the testimony for the hearing today:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?520756-1/student-victims-parents-testify-uvalde-buffalo-mass-shootings&live&vod

If you are a parent... if you have a soul... you won't make it through without tearing up.  

[HenryJames 66231]

At least she didn’t have to wear a mask.

[crash_davis 23122]

36 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

The conspiracies have already hit social media platforms. No one is crying and green screens and parents just standing around… etc etc

These people pushing the Sandy Hook was a hoax should be held accountable in some way.

"Freedom of Speech" bullshit. Many of the Republican base jerk off to bullshit conspiracies. That's why Republican representatives are all in protecting "freedom of speech". The crazier the bullshit, the more conviction their base votes Republican.

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

Fucking cunt from the Heritage Foundation speaking, criticizing calls for reform that come after every mass shooting. ‘Oooh, hopefully this is the last time this will happen.’ Ironically, her name is Swearer. Paid stooge representing gun manufacturers. Dig a little and I’ll bet you can find examples of her denying AGW, too.

She struck me as sort of Sarah Huckabeef lite.

Edited June 8, 2022 by WhatTheBuck

[Firemans4Horn 18258]

 

[4th&Five 41679]

Yeah, we definitely didn't change and add a shit ton of laws after 9/11.

[HenryJames 66231]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Fucking cunt from the Heritage Foundation speaking, criticizing calls for reform that come after every mass shooting. ‘Oooh, hopefully this is the last time this will happen.’ Ironically, her name is Swearer. Paid stooge representing gun manufacturers. Dig a little and I’ll bet you can find examples of her denying AGW, too.

She struck me as sort of Sarah Huckabeef lite.

Spoiler

 

[BurdineBandit 815]

I'm under no delusion that anything will actually change. I feel like the most likely outcome is some more bullshit red flag nonsense and tighter paperwork constrictions, but the guns will still be there. And the sellers will still be trying to make money off of it all. 

But, I am glad to see the families start to speak out. After hearing about that mom get threatened with jail for speaking out, and many with power in the town apparently working hard to keep information from getting out, I'm glad the actual victims in this are finding ways to speak up. 

[South Austin 52676]

38 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

It's not even worth reminding fucksticks like him that after 9/11, we reacted with reforms that included prohibiting weapons, including knives and other blades, on airplanes, and we all have to go through metal detectors and take off our shoes before entering the terminal, unless we have TSA pre-check or the like, which requires something that seems remarkably like a background check.  

And we're not talking about banning all guns, just like we weren't taking about banning all planes after 9/11, you straw man piece of dick.

Edited June 8, 2022 by South Austin

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

8 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

Maybe the guy who shot Scalise should’ve used an AR-15. 

[wildcat09 29449]

Nothing will change because Republicans like school shootings.

[Dahobbs 17765]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not sure that it should be framed as state law defusing federal law. Black was actually charged under a Wisconsin state law related to straw purchases, and was not prosecuted by the feds for lying on the 4473.  There is nothing stopping the feds from doing so right now.  It's pretty clear that Black lied on item 21a.  

And there is an order of magnitude more denials that are clear indications of lying on the 4473.  The investigation rate is about 10% and the prosecution rate among those investigated ~ 0.1%. The effective prosecution/violation rate is somewhere closer to 0.01%.  Instead of prosecuting these violations, the ATF typically sends out letters.  Here is a GAO report on the issue: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440  

It is a law that is inherently hard to enforce. Proving lying beyond a reasonable doubt is close to impossible. It is the same reason why perjury is rarely prosecuted. Substantially increased enforcement is a pipe dream as you'll quickly run into diminishing returns. 

And, that's the problem with existing gun laws. They aren't designed to work. In fact, they are designed to not work. Laws that require the buyer to be honest on a form are going to be ineffective at preventing unqualified individuals from getting access to guns. What we know will work is laws targeted at sellers and manufacturers. There are less of them the buyers, so they are easier to regulate, easier to identify, and easier to punish. Further, any sort of volume seller is going to be incentivized to follow the law rather than lose their ability to sell. This is why we need to raise the minimum age to purchase guns, add waiting periods, require licensure for gun ownership (and more robust licensure than we require for driving), and regulate what can be manufactured for civilian use. Now, none of this means getting rid of things like a 4473 form. But, we can't rely on that type of regulation to do the hard work of actually reducing unsafe access to guns and reducing gun violence. 

[MajorMajor 109]

LOL.  Full auto for everyone!  You are the problem.  Nothing is sensible to you.  
I need my 100 round clip!  
Idiot.

*magazine

[Bama Chick 28596]

It's not even worth reminding fucksticks like him that after 9/11, we reacted with reforms that included prohibiting weapons, including knifes and other blades, on airplanes, and we all have to go through metal detectors and take off our shoes before entering the terminal, unless we have TSA pre-check or the like, which requires something that seems remarkably like a background check.  
And we're not talking about banning all guns, just like we weren't taking about banning all planes after 9/11, you straw man piece of dick.

Fuck - here’s The Evil Turtle falling all over himself to get Beer Bong Brett some security because of ONE incident.

But thousands of dead kids?


Pfffffffffft. Too hard.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

I don't understand how they are even allowed to say things like this without immediately being called out by the press in the room. 

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nothing will change because Republicans like school shootings.

And shootings in churches and temples and mosques and grocery stores and theaters and music festivals. They really are a death cult that is interested in power over everything else.

[Captainant 27929]

2 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I don't understand how they are even allowed to say things like this without immediately being called out by the press in the room. 

"Sir, are you just grandstanding???"

fucking scumbags at the MM speech yesterday, but they give GQP ghouls a pass

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

3 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Fuck - here’s The Evil Turtle falling all over himself to get Beer Bong Brett some security because of ONE incident.

 

 

 

But thousands of dead kids?


Pfffffffffft. Too hard.

 

 

Now is not the time to discuss protection for right-wing justices. 

[Dahobbs 17765]

4 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

I don't understand how they are even allowed to say things like this without immediately being called out by the press in the room. 

I don't understand how they are even allowed to say things like this without immediately being shot in the room. 

[South Austin 52676]

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Fuck - here’s The Evil Turtle falling all over himself to get Beer Bong Brett some security because of ONE incident.

 

But thousands of dead kids?


Pfffffffffft. Too hard.

According to the Republicans, we just need to give Brett Kavanaugh a gun and let him fend for himself.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Just give ole Brett a bulletproof shield.

Right?

[speed817 19527]

22 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

  Hide contents

 

[Underdog 28855]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You’re an idiot. 

*Your

/Alien Octopus

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Pulverized

Decapitated

[royiv 9416]

8 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Pulverized

Decapitated
 

Powerful and yet it won’t do a damn thing. 

[RomaVicta 30056]

13 hours ago, B00M said:

Yes. That's how divided we are. 

Look, the right doesn't listen about guns (or anything?) when establishment Dems speak. 

MM is a credible centrist. If he'd called for a ban on 100+ year old technology that's already in half of american households, he would have lost that. It's unrealistic to ban all rifles and pistols, and that goal is exactly why the right is unwilling to compromise on basic shit.

Ride the MM wave and take the 1st down the defense is giving you. Or throw downfield into triple coverage, your call corch.

I'm with you on this, but I would go farther.

MM's presentation was nothing short of brilliant and authentic. The green sneaker...what can you say?

I don't think the crazies on the right are moved by people representing a viewpoint opposite to what hate radio tells them to think. They may be moved by irrefutable evidence.

Show the crime scene photos.

Let's stop being so intellectual about this. Let's get visceral. Nothing else has worked to sway the meatheads who so casually dismiss these child slaughters. 

Show them. You can't look at gruesome reality and prattle about Hunter Biden, gas prices, or some abstract notion of your imagined rights. 

Here. Look. Are you good with this?

[Aqua Buddha 14647]

27 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Fuck - here’s The Evil Turtle falling all over himself to get Beer Bong Brett some security because of ONE incident.

 

 

 

But thousands of dead kids?


Pfffffffffft. Too hard.

 

 

Simple.  Just arm the SC justices.

[Fudge Nuggets 19263]

15 hours ago, B00M said:

Never turn down an opportunity with an m134 minigun

Pew pew pew you small-dicked fucker.

[Snake Diggity 4628]

12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm with you on this, but I would go farther.

MM's presentation was nothing short of brilliant and authentic. The green sneaker...what can you say?

I don't think the crazies on the right are moved by people representing a viewpoint opposite to what hate radio tells them to think. They may be moved by irrefutable evidence.

Show the crime scene photos.

Let's stop being so intellectual about this. Let's get visceral. Nothing else has worked to sway the meatheads who so casually dismiss these child slaughters. 

Show them. You can't look at gruesome reality and prattle about Hunter Biden, gas prices, or some abstract notion of your imagined rights. 

Here. Look. Are you good with this?

Yep.  Need to take an example from this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

 

Every person against massive reform of our gun laws should be forced to look at those precious, decapitated children.

[Anastasis 23486]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It is a law that is inherently hard to enforce. Proving lying beyond a reasonable doubt is close to impossible. It is the same reason why perjury is rarely prosecuted. Substantially increased enforcement is a pipe dream as you'll quickly run into diminishing returns. 

The most common reasons for denials that are referred for investigation are felony history, protective order, and history of domestic violence. These seem like pretty objective things. You checked "no" to item 21b, and you in fact have a covered felony. You checked "no" to item 21i, when in fact you have a criminal history involving domestic violence. The GAO report I linked goes into the reasons provided by DOJ and ATF as to why these are not prosecuted. The most common are DOJ prosecutorial policies (only aggravated cases proceed) and resource constraints.  Difficulty in establishing intent to deceive is also discussed, as is the general unwillingness of judges and juries to view these cases as matters of public safety.  As far as I am concerned removed the intent requirement.  If you are submitting a 4473 for a firearm purchase be fucking certain of what you are attesting to before you execute it, because if you misrepresent yourself on this gun transfer you will get fucked.  And you will get fucked consistently hard every single time. 

 

41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This is why we need to raise the minimum age to purchase guns, add waiting periods, require licensure for gun ownership (and more robust licensure than we require for driving), and regulate what can be manufactured for civilian use. Now, none of this means getting rid of things like a 4473 form. But, we can't rely on that type of regulation to do the hard work of actually reducing unsafe access to guns and reducing gun violence.

Sure, agree with most of this. Raise the age for any semi-auto to 25, no problem with waiting periods (although I would prefer that we exclude revolvers and shotguns), licensure ok let's talk the specifics about what that would look like.  We'd probably find more area of disagreement on the civilian use item, but I would personally be willing to consider reasonable approaches as long as "civilian use" is drawn in such a way to include the vast majority of domestic law enforcement civilians.  

 

[Alien Octopus 599]

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

It's not fairy dust to argue that a mentally ill dipshit with no military training armed with a hunting rifle is going to cause a lot less damage in a school, nightclub, grocery store, etc. than the same dipshit with a high-powered assault rifle he just purchased at the arms equivalent of a 7-11 with no waiting period or background check.  And the Barney Fife's of the police force who arrive on such a scene are going to be more inclined to do their fucking jobs to subdue that kind of shooter than someone blazing away with an AR-15.

But yeah, keep pointing to Charles Whitman for why we should just stick to the status quo and every time a school is shot up we can find comfort when our leaders tell us, "well, it could've been worse."

It is fairy dust to presume that Charles Whitman could of done worse with an AR, it is pure fantasy and ballistically and practically stupid.

Keep clinging to the idea that banning guns will solve mass murders. Go ahead and continue to tax yourself by voting again and again for the government to save you. If the performance of the Uvalde police department is not enough evidence for you that leaving your life in the hands of the government is a terrible idea than really there is no hope for you.

I came here to see what solutions were being tossed around. See if there was any reasonable discourse. None found so far , just a bunch of finger pointing, ostriches. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20545]

3 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

 

Keep clinging to the idea that banning guns will solve mass murders. 

Keep clinging to the idea that anybody here thinks that banning guns will solve mass murders or that anybody here wants to ban guns.

[ultimaton 2983]

I probably wouldn't need saving if we'd stop selling AR15s to high school kids

[RomaVicta 30056]

12 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Republican leadership has absolutely no souls:
 

 

I'm running behind on the thread, sorry if I'm repeating someone else.

I think it's time we look at the NRA's hold on the GOP in a broader light. I think it's more than the votes of rabid gun nuts.

We know Russian money was funneled through the NRA to the GOP.

We know the NRA wanted to set up a public connection to Russia by having some sort of sister organization there. There was a controversial 2015 visit by NRA officials where they met with a high Russian official who is a hard line Russian imperialist. 

We know of the Paul Ryan taped conversation where Russia was mentioned. Ryan flatly denied the conversation took place. When presented with a transcript, he said it was false. When presented with the actual tape, he said it was all just joking.

It appears that no organization has greater power with the GOP than the NRA. Why?

The NRA is the spigot for Russian money. They also have a list and proof that GOPs have taken the money in whatever form. Why would the NRA leadership do this?

Money and power, of course. But they also sponsored Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin in making important connections. Butina is powerful enough with the NRA that she could threaten a person who dropped out of the Russian visit with political ruin.

While scurrying around looking for the clearly attainable hard facts of Russian "connections" and possible violations of the law, I think journalists are reluctant to pursue the bigger possible story of the NRA being a Russian operation altogether. They don't merely get duped by Russian agents; they're Russian agents themselves.

Circumstantial evidence: The NRA's absolute power over the GOPs; The NRA as a funnel for money to the GOPS; The GOP's astoudingly staunch support for Russia who clearly acts an enemy; The NRA, whose members are heavily in the NRA for reasons of gun safety, seems happy paving the way for discord over horrendous events like Uvalde. These events damage the US and makes our government seem ineffective. This matches Russian strategy in undermining the West especially the US.

I think the Russians very shrewdly compromised a powerful organization. It's likely easier and maybe more effective than compromising persons in government who come and go. The NRA is forever. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

13 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

It is fairy dust to presume that Charles Whitman could of done worse with an AR, it is pure fantasy and ballistically and practically stupid.

Keep clinging to the idea that banning guns will solve mass murders. Go ahead and continue to tax yourself by voting again and again for the government to save you. If the performance of the Uvalde police department is not enough evidence for you that leaving your life in the hands of the government is a terrible idea than really there is no hope for you.

I came here to see what solutions were being tossed around. See if there was any reasonable discourse. None found so far , just a bunch of finger pointing, ostriches. 

“could of?” You’re also illiterate. 

[Paul Wesley 3292]

5 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Keep clinging to the idea that anybody here thinks that banning guns will solve mass murders or that anybody here wants to ban guns.

I think his post is a perfect example of how throwing disingenuous shit all over everything prevents actual intelligent debate or meaningful progress.  I'm being honest here when I say that I can't tell if it's a well-organized and nefarious plan to destroy much-needed legislation, or if people are really that stupid.

The last time (depressingly, 14 years ago) we made any real effort to fix the catastrophically broken healthcare system that is 19.7 percent of our economy, we got to "Obama's Death Panels!" pretty fucking quickly.  Same ridiculous bullshit.  

[WhatTheBuck 28825]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

We know the NRA wanted to set up a public connection to Russia by having some sort of sister organization there.

I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that the dictator Putin is in favor of arming the populace in Russia. That’s the last thing he wants. He just wants to use the NRA to promote his agenda in the US, own and fund the GOP, and exploit cultural divisions to weaken his Western adversaries.

[Paul Wesley 3292]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I think the Russians very shrewdly compromised a powerful organization. 

I think this is one of the possibilities when I said I couldn't tell if the bullshit was a "well-organized and nefarious plan" (i.e. disinformation) or just stupidity.

Good post, btw.

[Fudge Nuggets 19263]

15 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Keep clinging to the idea that anybody here thinks that banning guns will solve mass murders or that anybody here wants to ban guns.

I would love to ban guns. Every fucking one of them. 

[Dahobbs 17765]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The most common reasons for denials that are referred for investigation are felony history, protective order, and history of domestic violence. These seem like pretty objective things. You checked "no" to item 21b, and you in fact have a covered felony. You checked "no" to item 21i, when in fact you have a criminal history involving domestic violence. The GAO report I linked goes into the reasons provided by DOJ and ATF as to why these are not prosecuted. The most common are DOJ prosecutorial policies (only aggravated cases proceed) and resource constraints.  Difficulty in establishing intent to deceive is also discussed, as is the general unwillingness of judges and juries to view these cases as matters of public safety.  As far as I am concerned removed the intent requirement.  If you are submitting a 4473 for a firearm purchase be fucking certain of what you are attesting to before you execute it, because if you misrepresent yourself on this gun transfer you will get fucked.  And you will get fucked consistently hard every single time. 

Removing intent as an element from criminal prosecutions will require going around some Constitutional hurdles. Easier said then done. Also, I'm surprised you of all people would support that sort of weakening in our criminal justice system given your prior posting history. 
 

Quote

 

Sure, agree with most of this. Raise the age for any semi-auto to 25, no problem with waiting periods (although I would prefer that we exclude revolvers and shotguns), licensure ok let's talk the specifics about what that would look like.  We'd probably find more area of disagreement on the civilian use item, but I would personally be willing to consider reasonable approaches as long as "civilian use" is drawn in such a way to include the vast majority of domestic law enforcement civilians.  

 

I'm actually not that big of a believer in outright bans of items. I believe the manufacturers need to be regulated in terms of how they selling, to whom they are selling, and tracking where items they manufacture go. Rather than outright preventing someone from owning an AR or even a high capacity magazine, my preference is stringent regulation on who is allowed to purchase those things through strong licensing requirements and potentially need-based limitations (this one I'm a little unsure how it would work). 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Bama Chick 28596]

I would love to ban guns. Every fucking one of them. 

Me too.

I’ve been radicalized.

The bad guys aren’t giving and inch, so fuck em.

Ban them all.

[RomaVicta 30056]

1 hour ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

I wonder where I can get a pair of human shit bookends like he has.

[Alien Octopus 599]

20 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Keep clinging to the idea that anybody here thinks that banning guns will solve mass murders or that anybody here wants to ban guns.

The first person who engaged said he wanted all guns banned. So guess it is not all just that guy…

[David Dennison 19040]

 

[Dahobbs 17765]

5 minutes ago, Alien Octopus said:

The first person who engaged said he wanted all guns banned. So guess it is not all just that guy…

Yes, there are individuals who want to do that. You know it will never happen. Unfortunately, we also know that because of people like you no sensible gun safety reform will happen. And as a result kids will continue to die, with many of their deaths preventable. That's on you. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Dahobbs