Active shooter thread

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

No, you're the person who is claiming "we are blaming inanimate objects".  That's the first talking point in the gun lobbies playbook.

So don't pull "society" into that shitty argument.

 

so guns fire spontaneously?

 

No they do not.

[tantric superman 4667]

And don't call me "bro". 

Chief or Ace or Smoov is fine.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

You change behavior by criminalizing possession. By banning guns you send a clear message to society that guns are not okay. You take the shit off the streets. Boycott stores that sell them. Make it a faux pas to own a gun. This isn't going to stop until we push back against the gun culture and significantly reduce the number of guns. 

Move to 1700's England dude.

 

My possession of a firearm...or 300, is a threat to nobody who makes no threat upon me of my family.  They never will be threats outside of that context either.

 

Tell me more about 'gun culture' versus the erosion of personal accountability in our society is driving our problems.

Also, tell me how taking guns away from folks who will never harm another human being with those guns outside of self defense makes us safer.  the shitheads are still going to have guns.  You can fucking count on it.

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

rescind the bill of rights.
If there is not freedom, people cannot fuck up.

Do you care to answer? At least have the balls to back up your “ideas”.

[horncyclist 1384]

4 minutes ago, slorch said:

rescind the bill of rights.

If there is not freedom, people cannot fuck up.

nah, I think we should just pass a 28th amendment making it clear that you have a right to not be randomly shot in public because other people want to go blast an assault rifle at the gun range in weekends. For the most part, we do not need guns. It is is a societal negative. Repeal the 2nd amendment if you have to but you don't have to. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, slorch said:

so guns fire spontaneously?

 

No they do not.

I can't believe they deleted the scene when Gny Sgt Hartman was telling this to Pyle at the rifle range.

 

[Guest]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

Do you care to answer? At least have the balls to back up your “ideas”.

Raise kids who don't have abortions.

Raise kids who will never shoot someone.

My grandparents did it.  My parents did it.  I did it.

 

Stop acting as if it's impossible to raise conscientious, responsible human beings.  The onus is on the individual.  Not the state.

[Guest]

Just now, tantric superman said:

I can't believe they deleted the scene when Gny Sgt Hartman was telling this to Pyle at the rifle range.

 

Yes, you treat a gun as if it always loaded.  

Nice change of context.

Guns don't commit the atrocities being discussed.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Raise kids who don't have abortions.
Raise kids who will never shoot someone.
My grandparents did it.  My parents did it.  I did it.
 
Stop acting as if it's impossible to raise conscientious, responsible human beings.  The onus is on the individual.  Not the state.

Are you serious? Do you think these shooters were taught at home to shoot people and have abortions? How do you make parents teach the children not to do these things? Put a parenting Marshall in each home?

[horncyclist 1384]

Just now, slorch said:

Yes, you treat a gun as if it always loaded.  

Nice change of context.

Guns don't commit the atrocities being discussed.

Yes, they do. Guns are the but-for cause of this shit. There are a number of studies that show this. I posted one a second ago. We need fewer guns. People should be able to own a gun with a permit for hunting and that's it. I say this as someone who grew up with guns and hunting, but this shit isn't worth it. We do not need guns. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

 

Are you serious? Do you think these shooters were taught at home to shoot people and have abortions? How do you make parents teach the children not to do these things? Put a parenting Marshall in each home?

 

why is a marshal needed?  Again, you think responsibility is a provision of the state.

Of course my answer is admittedly incomplete.  You are asking me to solve in one post what society has not answered in generations.

My question to you remains unanswered as well, " if you take my guns away or limit it to a Daisy B-B gun because that's what Tantric is comfortable with; how does it make you safer from the screwballs and criminals?"

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[tantric superman 4667]

The idea is intriguing.  Decriminalize and deregulate everything because "none of us have or will hurt anyone in the future". 

 

[cabowabo 4449]

It’s been over 12 hours since the shooting, and I’ve seen one grainy photo of the murderer. I wonder why.....

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

why is a marshal needed?  Again, you think responsibility is a provision of the state.
Of course my answer is admittedly incomplete.  You are asking me to solve in one post what society has not answered in generations.
My question to you remains unanswered as well, " if you take my guns away or limit it to a Daisy B-B gun because that's what Tantric is comfortable with; how does it make you safer from the screwballs and criminals?"

I’m not proposing a marshal, I am trying to understand the logistics of your solution.

As to your question about making me safe, how has the current laws and mentality about guns kept me safe in this country. Or the 12 people yesterday, or dozens in Vegas, or any of the previous shootings?

[tantric superman 4667]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

Yes, you treat a gun as if it always loaded.  

Nice change of context.

Guns don't commit the atrocities being discussed.

And I'm not saying they do, in and of themselves.  Stop being a dolt. 

Don't take my silence on your repeated us of these stupid cliches to mean I agree with them.

[Guest]

Just now, Patricio Swayze said:

I’m not proposing a marshal, I am trying to understand the logistics of your solution.

As to your question about making me safe, how has the current laws and mentality about guns kept me safe in this country. Or the 12 people yesterday, or dozens in Vegas, or any of the previous shootings?

read any cop threads lately?

Read any of the leanings/ reasoning why the framers included the 2nd amendment in the BoR and why it was needed?  

As bad as it is, I do sincerely believe it will be tremendously worse without good guys also having guns, both on the streets and with regard to our government.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

It’s been over 12 hours since the shooting, and I’ve seen one grainy photo of the murderer. I wonder why.....

If we could to the bottom of that then maybe we can make parents accountable.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

And I'm not saying they do, in and of themselves.  Stop being a dolt. 

Don't take my silence on your repeated us of these stupid cliches to mean I agree with them.

Just addressing stupidity with the same, smoov.

 

11 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Yes, they do. Guns are the but-for cause of this shit. There are a number of studies that show this. I posted one a second ago. We need fewer guns. People should be able to own a gun with a permit for hunting and that's it. I say this as someone who grew up with guns and hunting, but this shit isn't worth it. We do not need guns. 

You're flat out wrong.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

If we could to the bottom of that then maybe we can make parents accountable.

We cannot even get them to get their kids to school on time...( ask any administrator) but for hurting someone's feelings.

But let's take slorch's guns away because I'm scared.

[tantric superman 4667]

What regs are permissible in terms of handguns or rifles, slorch?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

What regs are permissible in terms of handguns or rifles, slorch?

Don't shoot other people is already on the books, right? Enforce it. 

Stop chasing potheads and put those resources towards mental health/ family counselling.  Yes, seriously.

You commit a crime with a gun, you get serious penalties.  You do it again, you stay in prison for life.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[Incredulity 11532]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

What regs are permissible in terms of handguns or rifles, slorch?

How many more do we need?

[tantric superman 4667]

Just now, slorch said:

Don't shoot other people is already on the books, right?

 

 

Nope, unless you have a link to such a broad and stupidly stated regulation.

But my assumption is, that much like the fact that you didn't seem interested in reading the Mueller Report, you probably aren't interested in determining what regulations out there are reasonable or not.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

How many more do we need?

Hmm.  Are you going to have trouble with this as well?

Just asking you what regulations you think are reasonable, whether or not the do or don't exist.

 

[David Dennison 18608]

6 minutes ago, slorch said:

We cannot even get them to get their kids to school on time...( ask any administrator) but for hurting someone's feelings.

But let's take slorch's guns away because I'm scared.

These are decades old talking points.

One of these days, you're going to be forced to come up with better arguments against gun regulation.

[tantric superman 4667]

To be fair, incred, I'm just trying to find out whether or not you or slorch is an absolutist about any regulations of firearms.  I have just as much tolerance for that argument as I do for one that says the current legal structure would allow the banning of possession of weapons.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

To be fair, incred, I'm just trying to find out whether or not you or slorch is an absolutist about any regulations of firearms.  I have just as much tolerance for that argument as I do for one that says the current legal structure would allow the banning of possession of weapons.

I answered further above.

I do believe it is a fundamental right to own and have firearms at one's disposal, if they so choose  UNTIL or UNLESS they have shown to be incapable of responsible ownership of said  firearms.  I believe in prosecuting behavior as opposed to going all minority report and assuming future crimes.

I don't have a problem at all with background checks, in fact I support them.  That is insight to past behavior.

I do struggle with the "you can have this caliber weapon because it's good for sparrows, but won't stop a human being." type regulations.  I don't really care how someone else feels about what I possess.  It is not a risk to them unless they start shit first.

 

I do strongly feel further restrictions do nothing against the criminals and whackjobs who are already harming other human beings.  they are not going to miraculously start giving a fuck.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[David Dennison 18608]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

I answered further above.

I do believe it is a fundamental right to own and have firearms at one's disposal, if they so choose  UNTIL or UNLESS they have shown to be incapable of responsible ownership of said  firearms.  I believe in prosecuting behavior as opposed to going all minority report and assuming future crimes.

I don't have a problem at all with background checks, in fact I support them.

I do struggle with the "you can have this caliber weapon because it's good for sparrows, but won't stop a human being." type regulations.  I don't really care how someone else feels about what I possess.  It is not a risk to them unless they start shit first.

 

Is an individual convicted of driving drunk capable of responsible ownership?

[G650 13990]

1 hour ago, cabowabo said:

It’s been over 12 hours since the shooting, and I’ve seen one grainy photo of the murderer. I wonder why.....

Why don't you tell us.

[G650 13990]

56 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

How many more do we need?

A lot. We have hardly any.

[Incredulity 11532]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Hmm.  Are you going to have trouble with this as well?

Just asking you what regulations you think are reasonable, whether or not the do or don't exist.

 

Certainly sensible regulations exist.

There are currently many already on the books. I don’t believe more prohibition/restriction is going to blunt the trend.

Wholesale ban and confiscation is probably the only way to seriously stop this from happening.  I am not in favor of ban and confiscation, even if it was possible.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Is an individual convicted of driving drunk capable of responsible ownership? 

Yeah slorch, I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah slorch, I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

I’d say no. I’m pretty extreme in my views on DUI, but I do believe it is a demonstration of bad judgment that might correlate with other risky behavior. 

IMHO, there is no reason a DUI should ever happen if you’re making the right decisions towards others. 

I say that with the caveat that prosecution is questionable at best. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

I do strongly feel further restrictions do nothing against the criminals and whackjobs who are already harming other human beings.  they are not going to miraculously start giving a fuck.

For someone who is seems completely locked in to the idea that failure of upbringing and socialization dooms individuals and that social policy simply can't (or shouldn't) address the problems of these doomed individuals, you seem to be ascribing an argument to liberals that I really haven't seen.

None of the pro-regulation approach is designed to make people miraculously start giving a fuck.  Regulatory policy assumes that the person doesn't give a fuck, and is designed to coerce them into compliance in one form or another.

As Onboard notes, I either take away guns (unconstitutional) or I engage in coercion to lessen the perceived problem.  I don't assume there is going to be a change of heart because of regulation.

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

Not sure why I’m engaging at all, let alone having only read this page. But here goes. 

If what I read last night is accurate, this shooting was committed with a single .45 caliber pistol and extended capacity magazines. 

Ignore all the noise out there about assault style weapons, regulate mag size. More time reloading and less time shooting is how you keep the body count down in these incidents. 

Theres a reason we wage war with belt fed machine guns and not with breach load rifles.  

Its a tough thing when we as a country want to be able to shoot one or two people under certain circumstances, and want to be able to take arms against our own government if it ever goes too far astray, but also we don’t want people to be able to shoot up a building when they lose their mind. Tough to dial something like that in. 

[Guest]

And my contention is that coercion wrongly impacts me, the guy already abiding by the laws, who wasn’t a risk from the get-go.  

 

All in the name of helping someone else feel ‘safe.’

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[tantric superman 4667]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

I’d say no. I’m pretty extreme in my views on DUI, but I do believe it is a demonstration of bad judgment that might correlate with other risky behavior. 

IMHO, there is no reason a DUI should ever happen if you’re making the right decisions towards others. 

No threadjack., you do admit that the vast majority of DUIs go undetected. I would bet that everyone on this thread, other than you of course, has driven above the legal limit at least at some point.

Only points to the extreme limits of the efficacy of background checks, both as to the number of incidents of the behavior as well as selective enforcement.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

No threadjack., you do admit that the vast majority of DUIs go undetected. I would bet that everyone on this thread, other than you of course, has driven above the legal limit at least at some point.

Only points to the extreme limits of the efficacy of background checks, both as to the number of incidents of the behavior as well as selective enforcement.

Are you suggesting we are equally capable of a gun crime?

I didn’t mean to suggest the same with regard to bg checks being absolute.  I do believe they are an important tool in the process. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by slorch

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, slorch said:

And my contention is that coercion wrongly impacts me, the guy already abiding by the laws, who wasn’t a risk from the get-go.  

 

All in the name of helping someone else feel ‘safe.’

Literally every criminal, or environmental (and certainly every safety) regulation and almost all local ordinances are designed to make citizens feel safe. 

Your argument that this is somehow uniquely about "feelings" is just silly.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

Are you suggesting we are equally capable of a gun crime?

You are much more likely to commit "gun crime" than me, assuming you have weapons.

[tantric superman 4667]

Your also much more likely to blow your brains out with a gun, and save a damsel in distress or shoot a crazy armed man than I. 

[tantric superman 4667]

10 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Not sure why I’m engaging at all, let alone having only read this page. But here goes. 

If what I read last night is accurate, this shooting was committed with a single .45 caliber pistol and extended capacity magazines. 

Ignore all the noise out there about assault style weapons, regulate mag size. More time reloading and less time shooting is how you keep the body count down in these incidents. 

Theres a reason we wage war with belt fed machine guns and not with breach load rifles.  

Its a tough thing when we as a country want to be able to shoot one or two people under certain circumstances, and want to be able to take arms against our own government if it ever goes too far astray, but also we don’t want people to be able to shoot up a building when they lose their mind. Tough to dial something like that in. 

Not if your mom raised you right.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Literally every criminal, or environmental (and certainly every safety) regulation and almost all local ordinances are designed to make citizens feel safe. 

Your argument that this is somehow uniquely about "feelings" is just silly.

Environmental laws restrict liberty?  I mean, yeah dumping oil in the yard is something of personal liberty...until it hits the water supply or otherwuse leaves my property. 

I disagree with the contention that a little restriction is OK if some people like it. Laws should be just, not feel good horseshit.  See also much of alcohol regulations in general. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

You are much more likely to commit "gun crime" than me, assuming you have weapons.

The probability for me is zero, save for some goofball legislation going forward.   Why is that so difficult to fathom. 

[David Dennison 18608]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

The probability for me is zero, save for some goofball legislation going forward.   Why is that so difficult to fathom. 

Why is it difficult for you to fathom that the probability for you is not zero?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Look here you pussy libtards, until you can figure out how to raise your kids to not shoot people this is just going to have to stay a part of American life. If you don’t like it, leave.

[G650 13990]

I've been eyeing Switzerland myself for awhile now.

[Loco 3752]

24 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Look here you pussy libtards, until you can figure out how to raise your kids to not shoot people this is just going to have to stay a part of American life. If you don’t like it, leave.

If you can dodge a bullet, you can dodge a ball.

-Patches O'Houlihan

[Pato del Muerto 52322]

6 minutes ago, G650 said:

I've been eyeing Switzerland myself for awhile now.

Scandinavia for us

[Pam Cummings 9553]

Guns are just yet another subject where so called "conservatives" actively sabotage every reasonable solution to the problem and then claim that "the government can't fix it".

 

Remember, these people think it's OK to write legislation telling women what to do with their bodies, but you aren't allowed to lay a finger on their self-described "inanimate objects".

Edited June 1, 2019 by Pam Cummings