another shooting in a gun free zone
Comments
-
And your suggestion is that responsible gun owners whipping out their NIИ's are somehow going to create less carnage in a group full of people? That makes loads of sense.sarktastic said:I'm saying the dead victims were sitting ducks with no means to defend themselves and that any faith they may have held in Obama to keep them safe, was misplaced.
I could care less if you want to own a fucking gun, but the fact that anyone continues to argue political sides of this and not admit we're the only country who shoots each other in mass quantities are morons, or even worse closeted duck fans. Both sides run to their agenda as soon as these happen and nobody does a damn thing.
As freemont said, fuck you all for not actually just trying ANYTHING but status quo. Bravo. -
It is a simple fact that we are not the only country that kills each other in mass quantities. Ever heard of the middle east?
I have never owned a gun and I wouldn't argue that the only reason to have guns is to be armed in case of a mass shooting because nobody is making that argument. It's another straw man because the anti gun arguments are so weak.
I'm against illogical reasoning to take more freedoms away.
Don't blame Islam, blame guns.
If we have an issue with mental illness, and we do, we need to revisit putting people back in lock up for mental illness. We emptied the hospitals.
It's the person behind the gun. We have the religious nuts and the mentally ill. What do we do about them?
LETS DO SOMETHING is the cry of the totalitarian. Tell me specifically what you want to do and we can discuss.
Close all the phantom loopholes and then what?
The fact is we need to confiscate all the guns by force house to house to make it work. It's funny how liberals understand so completely that prohibiting booze or drugs or whores won;t stop the behavior let always want prohibition of guns.
That's why it is obviously nothing more than a stupid political wedge issue and I refuse to be stupid enough to fall for is and vote for lying pieces of shot failures just because they rail against the NRA
Good day -
My argument is much simpler than Race's. I have guns and I will shoot you in the dick if you try to take them away.
Good day! -
It is a political wedge issue which shouldn't be a political wedge which is where we agree. However the condescension in your post is precisely what's I was referring to.
-
There was nothing condescending about my post.
-
So do you attribute this to guns or mental illness?FreeChavez said:
And your suggestion is that responsible gun owners whipping out their NIИ's are somehow going to create less carnage in a group full of people? That makes loads of sense.sarktastic said:I'm saying the dead victims were sitting ducks with no means to defend themselves and that any faith they may have held in Obama to keep them safe, was misplaced.
I could care less if you want to own a fucking gun, but the fact that anyone continues to argue political sides of this and not admit we're the only country who shoots each other in mass quantities are morons, or even worse closeted duck fans. Both sides run to their agenda as soon as these happen and nobody does a damn thing.
As freemont said, fuck you all for not actually just trying ANYTHING but status quo. Bravo. -
And your suggestion is that responsible gun owners whipping out their NIИ's are somehow going to create less carnage in a group full of people? That makes loads of sense.
@FreeChavez:
If a trained gun owner is packing a side-arm, it at least remains a possibility. You cannot dismiss that. Armed resistance will slow down or stop these guys, like it ultimately did here. That's why they attack "soft targets," i.e., no protection or resistance.
I'm all for progress on both sides of the issue. NRA leadership is full of assholes, but there's nothing wrong with responsible people owning guns, and that happens to be their chief lobby against irrational anti-gun measures that don't work. I also read the 2nd Amendment as written, which begins with "A well-regulated militia..." so you bet your ass the government has a right to restrict gun ownership to sane individuals. I also favor background checks. Who the fuck wouldn't? The proverbial frightened woman the NRA loves to trot out, who needs a gun right fucking now? How about she instead goes to a shelter or friends house for 24 hours. Who needs a gun right-fucking-now, aside from someone about to do something stupid, irrational, or dangerous?
It's both guns and dangerous people. It's not one or the other. We can walk and chew gum on this one, but people are so fucking dug into their positions, they won't talk or listen to one another.
Okay, assholes, drill me a new one now. I'm sure I overlooked something critical in my rant. -
Yeah ever hear of the Middle East? We're better than
Tythem!
Speaking of a straw man, how many bills have been introduced to ban guns completely?
Oh we need more hospitals for the mentally ill. I suppose we'll pay for those with fairy dust and prayers. We sure as shit can't actually raise taxes for it.
I like to claim to not be stupid enough to fall for a political wedge issue while I'm currently falling for it. I like to do that.
Other than that, great post. -
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/120215-783412-obama-wrong-mass-shootings-happen-elsewhere-and-more-frequently.htm
Obama also overlooks Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated. Of the four worst K-12 school shootings, three have occurred in Europe. Germany had two of these — one in 2002 at Erfut and another in 2009 at Winnenden, with a total death toll of 34.
Obama isn't correct even if he meant the frequency of fatalities or attacks. Many European countries actually have higher rates of death from public shootings that resulted in four or more murders. It's simply a matter of adjusting for America's much larger population.
Let's look at mass public shootings from 2009 to the middle of June this year. To compare fairly with American shootings, I excluded attacks that might be better classified as struggles over sovereignty. For instance, I did not count the 22 people killed in the Macedonian town of Kumanovo last month.
Norway had the highest annual death rate, with two mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Macedonia had a rate of 0.38, Serbia 0.28, Slovakia 0.20, Finland 0.14, Belgium 0.14 and the Czech Republic 0.13. The U.S. comes in eighth with 0.095 mass public shooting fatalities per million people. Austria and Switzerland are close behind.
In terms of the frequency of attacks, the U.S. ranks ninth, with 0.09 attacks per million people. Macedonia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway, Slovakia, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic all had higher rates. -
Thanks DAWG!allpurpleallgold said:Yeah ever hear of the Middle East? We're better than
Tythem!
Speaking of a straw man, how many bills have been introduced to ban guns completely?
Oh we need more hospitals for the mentally ill. I suppose we'll pay for those with fairy dust and prayers. We sure as shit can't actually raise taxes for it.
I like to claim to not be stupid enough to fall for a political wedge issue while I'm currently falling for it. I like to do that.
Other than that, great post.
My point on a complete ban is that it is the only thing that would work even though we know that prohibition won't work. This incremental bull shit is an election year staple. You do know that the democrats had a lock down majority that brought us Obamacare. Certainly could have brought us closure of the legendary gun show loophole. It's easier to run against the NRA than it is to pass something that will fail and be held accountable for it.
I'm not voting for anyone on the gun issue either way. So it is in fact, not a wedge issue for me. I'm a logical person making a logical argument in the face of hysteria fomented by idiots.
We need to treat the mentally ill. I think we all do agree on that. Having them roam the streets or mom's basement before they explode is not a good strategy. The idea that the trillions of dollars we spend are some untouchable baseline of things that could never be eliminated to spend on shit we actually need is another election year special.
Hope this wasn't too condescending. Good luck the rest of the way! -
More people died in Chicago of gun violence, than died in the San Bernardino radical Islamic terrorist attack yesterday... is what I'm hearing.
-
Radicalization and extremist rhetoric has inspired and killed more people than ever before, its time to act.allpurpleallgold said:Yeah ever hear of the Middle East? We're better than
Tythem!
Speaking of a straw man, how many bills have been introduced to ban guns completely?
Oh we need more hospitals for the mentally ill. I suppose we'll pay for those with fairy dust and prayers. We sure as shit can't actually raise taxes for it.
I like to claim to not be stupid enough to fall for a political wedge issue while I'm currently falling for it. I like to do that.
Other than that, great post.
How about we pass a "common sense" law. Lets call it the Protection of the People and State Acts. This will allow for any officers of the state to take any appropriate measures to remedy dangers to public safety due to irresponsible speech, talk, text or protests.
The main tenets of the decree shall be as follows;
1) It shall be unlawful to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of the United States.
2) It shall be unlawful to write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against any capacity or officer of the government of the United States.
Im not proposing anyone take away all of your free speech, so dont twist.
Or how about we lock some people up in prison just a little bit whenever we feel like it, like just a few hours a day or something. Im not proposing anyone take away all of your freedom of movement. Dont fall for the political wedge though. -
When will the man charged with defending us, acknowledge this Jihad Muslim terrorist attack?
-
1. and 2. are fucked up, sorry.Houhusky said:
Radicalization and extremist rhetoric has inspired and killed more people than ever before, its time to act.allpurpleallgold said:Yeah ever hear of the Middle East? We're better than
Tythem!
Speaking of a straw man, how many bills have been introduced to ban guns completely?
Oh we need more hospitals for the mentally ill. I suppose we'll pay for those with fairy dust and prayers. We sure as shit can't actually raise taxes for it.
I like to claim to not be stupid enough to fall for a political wedge issue while I'm currently falling for it. I like to do that.
Other than that, great post.
How about we pass a "common sense" law. Lets call it the Protection of the People and State Acts. This will allow for any officers of the state to take any appropriate measures to remedy dangers to public safety due to irresponsible speech, talk, text or protests.
The main tenets of the decree shall be as follows;
1) It shall be unlawful to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of the United States.
2) It shall be unlawful to write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against any capacity or officer of the government of the United States.
Im not proposing anyone take away all of your free speech, so dont twist.
Or how about we lock some people up in prison just a little bit whenever we feel like it, like just a few hours a day or something. Im not proposing anyone take away all of your freedom of movement. Dont fall for the political wedge though. -
But the important thing is to remember no one is saying to take away all of your free speech.sarktastic said:
1. and 2. are fucked up, sorry.Houhusky said:
Radicalization and extremist rhetoric has inspired and killed more people than ever before, its time to act.allpurpleallgold said:Yeah ever hear of the Middle East? We're better than
Tythem!
Speaking of a straw man, how many bills have been introduced to ban guns completely?
Oh we need more hospitals for the mentally ill. I suppose we'll pay for those with fairy dust and prayers. We sure as shit can't actually raise taxes for it.
I like to claim to not be stupid enough to fall for a political wedge issue while I'm currently falling for it. I like to do that.
Other than that, great post.
How about we pass a "common sense" law. Lets call it the Protection of the People and State Acts. This will allow for any officers of the state to take any appropriate measures to remedy dangers to public safety due to irresponsible speech, talk, text or protests.
The main tenets of the decree shall be as follows;
1) It shall be unlawful to combine or conspire together to oppose any measure of the government of the United States.
2) It shall be unlawful to write, print, utter or publish, or cause it to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against any capacity or officer of the government of the United States.
Im not proposing anyone take away all of your free speech, so dont twist.
Or how about we lock some people up in prison just a little bit whenever we feel like it, like just a few hours a day or something. Im not proposing anyone take away all of your freedom of movement. Dont fall for the political wedge though.
that was the point, those were actual laws...
that is what happens when people start to ignore the constitution and make "common sense" laws that only restrict "parts" of peoples freedoms, those were actual fucked up laws that people actually agreed with, that were actually passed. -
https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers
Are you going to throw 18% of Americans in hospitals? Or are you going to pay for 18% of Americans to go to therapy every week? And their meds.
You keep pulling the bullshit Damone trick demanding solutions while throwing generic bullshit about helping the mentally ill. You don't have a solution for that because you have absolutely no facts on it. It's a talking point.
You can do this above the fray bullshit all you like. But the only people falling for it are idiots. You're so logical. Look at Race on the high ground above all others. You're basically the asshole that says he agnostic when asked if you believe in God. It's a bullshit position intended to make you look smarter than everyone else. -
I have a solution. It just wouldn't be considered "humane"
-
Now you are worried about how to pay for things?!!! #ifitsaves1lifeallpurpleallgold said:https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers
Are you going to throw 18% of Americans in hospitals? Or are you going to pay for 18% of Americans to go to therapy every week? And their meds.
You keep pulling the bullshit Damone trick demanding solutions while throwing generic bullshit about helping the mentally ill. You don't have a solution for that because you have absolutely no facts on it. It's a talking point.
You can do this above the fray bullshit all you like. But the only people falling for it are idiots. You're so logical. Look at Race on the high ground above all others. You're basically the asshole that says he agnostic when asked if you believe in God. It's a bullshit position intended to make you look smarter than everyone else. -
No, we(?) can't throw all mentally ill into involuntary commitment. But 18% is a facile number. Of the numbers cited there, I would guess the one that only begins to come close are the 1.1% of the population suffering from schizophrenia. Then, what segment of that population has paranoid or violent tendencies associated with their illness.allpurpleallgold said:https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers
Are you going to throw 18% of Americans in hospitals? Or are you going to pay for 18% of Americans to go to therapy every week? And their meds.
You keep pulling the bullshit Damone trick demanding solutions while throwing generic bullshit about helping the mentally ill. You don't have a solution for that because you have absolutely no facts on it. It's a talking point.
You can do this above the fray bullshit all you like. But the only people falling for it are idiots. You're so logical. Look at Race on the high ground above all others. You're basically the asshole that says he agnostic when asked if you believe in God. It's a bullshit position intended to make you look smarter than everyone else. -
Is it FINAL?CuntWaffle said:I have a solution. It just wouldn't be considered "humane"
-
I'd rather keep using tax dollars to help people pay for their malt liquor and McDonalds.
-
I EATIG MCDONGALS!!!!!!!! I DRIKNIG CLOT 54!!!!!!!1CuntWaffle said:I'd rather keep using tax dollars to help people pay for their malt liquor and McDonalds.
-
Most patients with stable mental illness do not present an increased risk of violence. Asnis, et al.,8 found that 21 of 517 outpatients (4%) in an urban setting reported a history of homicide attempts. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686644/GrundleStiltzkin said:
No, we(?) can't throw all mentally ill into involuntary commitment. But 18% is a facile number. Of the numbers cited there, I would guess the one that only begins to come close are the 1.1% of the population suffering from schizophrenia. Then, what segment of that population has paranoid or violent tendencies associated with their illness.allpurpleallgold said:https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers
Are you going to throw 18% of Americans in hospitals? Or are you going to pay for 18% of Americans to go to therapy every week? And their meds.
You keep pulling the bullshit Damone trick demanding solutions while throwing generic bullshit about helping the mentally ill. You don't have a solution for that because you have absolutely no facts on it. It's a talking point.
You can do this above the fray bullshit all you like. But the only people falling for it are idiots. You're so logical. Look at Race on the high ground above all others. You're basically the asshole that says he agnostic when asked if you believe in God. It's a bullshit position intended to make you look smarter than everyone else.
Math time!
319,000,000*18% = 60,000,000
60,000,000 * 4% = 2,400,000
2,400,000/319,000,000 = .76 % of the US population would be "mentally ill outpatients" with a possible propensity for homicide.
Note that those numbers just reflect homicide and do not address whether those homicide attempts involved guns. -
Mass shooting are happening more frequently than ever before because of the momentum given to them by the circus media.
For the depressed, deranged, and impressionable folks looking to make an impact, it's the cool thing to do.
Domestic terrorists might be the new hipsters. Radical Islam is so in right now. -
I'm a believer in GOD not an agnostic.allpurpleallgold said:https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers
Are you going to throw 18% of Americans in hospitals? Or are you going to pay for 18% of Americans to go to therapy every week? And their meds.
You keep pulling the bullshit Damone trick demanding solutions while throwing generic bullshit about helping the mentally ill. You don't have a solution for that because you have absolutely no facts on it. It's a talking point.
You can do this above the fray bullshit all you like. But the only people falling for it are idiots. You're so logical. Look at Race on the high ground above all others. You're basically the asshole that says he agnostic when asked if you believe in God. It's a bullshit position intended to make you look smarter than everyone else.
Did I say we need to throw 18% of Americans in a hospital. Another poster gave more accurate numbers.
I'm not the crusader on my high horse saying WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!111!!!
It's not the gun. It's the person behind the gun.
I'm not demanding solutions, again you are reflecting yourself on me. I am pointing out that the solutions you are demanding won't work. If Congress wants to pass "common sense guns laws" whatever the hell that bullshit means, it is fine with me. We'll still have shootings.
By the way how is mental illness a talking point? Aren't these mass shooters mentally ill?
There are all sorts of triggers that get a nut to pull the trigger. How many do you want to get rid of?
I am logical. Sorry that pisses you off. Hope you don't own a gun -
If you don't like gun control, you can just become a criminal and not register your weapon.
-
Sorry, that's illegal. Try again.PurpleJ said:If you don't like gun control, you can just become a criminal and not register your weapon.
-
Race, are the Jihadi's crazy? or calculated?
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/police-hunt-for-motive-behind-san-bernardino-shooting-1449131982
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif.— Authorities said Thursday that the two suspects who stormed a holiday gathering of county employees on Wednesday, killing 14 people, deployed remote-controlled pipe bombs at the scene and had amassed thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Law-enforcement officials said they were still unsure of what motivated Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, to open fire at the event for county employees while dressed in “assault-style clothing” and armed with semiautomatic weapons.
But at the scene, investigators found three connected pipe bombs set to be detonated by a contraption linked to remote-controlled car. And after catching up to and killing the suspects in a fierce gunbattle hours later on Wednesday, authorities found that they were heavily stocked with ammunition.
“They had over 1,400 .223 caliber rounds and 200 9-millimeter rounds available to them,” San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said Thursday. They had also rented the Ford SUV used in the incident, which had Utah license plates, he said.
At a home in Redlands, Calif., linked to the suspects, law-enforcement officials discovered thousands of additional rounds of ammunition, as well as “12 pipe bomb type devices” and other materials to produce explosives, Mr. Burguan said.
Officials said the death toll remained at 14, but the number of wounded had risen to 21. They said they expected the county coroner to release names of the dead later in the day.
Mr. Farook, a 28-year-old San Bernardino County employee, and Ms. Malik, 27, had left their six-month-old child with Mr. Farook’s mother on the morning of the shooting, law-enforcement officials said. He was a U.S. native born to Pakistani immigrants. She was a Pakistani national who had formerly lived in Saudi Arabia.
David Bowdich, assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Los Angeles office, said Thursday that officials were not ready to declare a motive in the shooting, though they were exploring the possibility that the suspects intended to target additional locations.
“It would be way too early to speculate on motive,” Mr. Bowdich said, but added, “There was obviously a mission here. We do not know why.”
According to people familiar with the probe into the shooting, investigators increasingly suspect Mr. Farook was motivated at least in part by an attraction to international terrorism, an assessment based on the early stages of reviewing his contacts and computer usage. -
I would say calculated but we (?) are not allowed to say that so I didn't say itsarktastic said:Race, are the Jihadi's crazy? or calculated?
