Another fucking shooting

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Also, just to point it out.

I always like to tell people one of the strangest experiences I had immigrating to Germany after living in Long Beach. My first few Nights sleeping at my Grandparents Home in a fairly rural German Town were rather nerve wrecking. I could hear the Crickets you see. They were keeping me awake, I was missing the distant (and more often then I am comfortable to recall not so distant) gunfire and police helicopters looking for suspects that normally craddeled me into slumber.

Can the Americans here imagine just how alien their gun culture is to most europeans? Gunfire was normal to me to the point that the ABSENCE of Gunfire was keeoing me awake as if something were wrong. That's super fucked up in case anyone needed to be told.

And as a American, gotta say guys, the whole self-defense thing is a excuse and you know it. They are just big loud Toys for most of you. Taking that into consideration, the people that would use Tools of Death mostly as playthings are the last people I'd want to have weapons widely availible to. At this point I'm doubtful that there is any real solution to this issue, too many guns already present and gun ownership romanticized to a ridiculous point within the culture.

Saelune:

Super Cyborg:

Zontar:

Well it's just as London's mayor Sadiq Khan has stated: this is just part and parcel of it all.

Ok, yeah, bad things happen in life and you can't stop it all. So I worded my worries wrong, because I know that bad events are part of life, and we can never eliminate it. My worry is that I will just figure why bother getting upset and never even try to think of a way to make things better. I don't want to lose the ability to feel what I do when events like these happen, and reach a point where something like this happens and I feel nothing at all.

Then again, only in the past year have I really started trying to read up on what's happening in the world, and this may be part of my frustration of not being able to keep up with everything.

The problem is all the gun nuts who will either not come in here because they know they are wrong but wont admit it, or will come later and be openly wrong but use racism to 'justify' their gun-nutship.

Too many people want to kick out Mexicans but keep the guns. But time after time its shown that Mexicans 'stealing jobs' is not the problem that guns stealing lives is.

But hey, I guess if these people need all these jobs Mexicans are supposedly stealing, all these murders will open up some jobs eh? Vegas is probably hiring, now Texas is too.

I am a bit confused, did you mean to respond to me? I don't know what in your response was supposed to apply to what I was saying.

Zontar:

Super Cyborg:

Then again, only in the past year have I really started trying to read up on what's happening in the world, and this may be part of my frustration of not being able to keep up with everything.

This probably is a major factor in it all. Overall gun violence has been on a downward trend for the past 30 years, with a few cities seeing an upturn over the past few years that's so small there's a debate as to whether or not it's even real. Yet with the way some people talk about gun crime you'd think we where living in the 70s where random daylight shootings in the streets where the norm in pretty much every major city.

I don't know much about crime rates and fluctuations between the years. That said, plenty of terrible things have happened this year, and even if rates are going down, it's taking a toll on me in a way. That, and even if crime is lower than it has even been, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be considerations being put forth to lower it even more. In my various jobs over the years, it's that fight for perfection that stops things from sliding down, because while nothing is ever perfect, striving for it should help keep things from getting worse.

Super Cyborg:
I don't know much about crime rates and fluctuations between the years. That said, plenty of terrible things have happened this year, and even if rates are going down, it's taking a toll on me in a way. That, and even if crime is lower than it has even been, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be considerations being put forth to lower it even more. In my various jobs over the years, it's that fight for perfection that stops things from sliding down, because while nothing is ever perfect, striving for it should help keep things from getting worse.

This is true, though it's difficult work to actually set it in motion. As it stands there's an argument that's being made that much of the reduction in violence over the past 30 years has stemmed from those who would have caused it not being born in the first place due to the legalisation of abortion, and much of the violence that remains will be hard to deal with since it's mostly gang related and while the move to legalise things is likely going to help it'll take time for that to put a dent in the non-weed lines of drug distribution.

But that's life I suppose, nothing's perfect, but things can always be made better even if we're better off then any who came before us.

Super Cyborg:

Saelune:

Super Cyborg:
Ok, yeah, bad things happen in life and you can't stop it all. So I worded my worries wrong, because I know that bad events are part of life, and we can never eliminate it. My worry is that I will just figure why bother getting upset and never even try to think of a way to make things better. I don't want to lose the ability to feel what I do when events like these happen, and reach a point where something like this happens and I feel nothing at all.

Then again, only in the past year have I really started trying to read up on what's happening in the world, and this may be part of my frustration of not being able to keep up with everything.

The problem is all the gun nuts who will either not come in here because they know they are wrong but wont admit it, or will come later and be openly wrong but use racism to 'justify' their gun-nutship.

Too many people want to kick out Mexicans but keep the guns. But time after time its shown that Mexicans 'stealing jobs' is not the problem that guns stealing lives is.

But hey, I guess if these people need all these jobs Mexicans are supposedly stealing, all these murders will open up some jobs eh? Vegas is probably hiring, now Texas is too.

I am a bit confused, did you mean to respond to me? I don't know what in your response was supposed to apply to what I was saying.

Zontar:

Super Cyborg:

Then again, only in the past year have I really started trying to read up on what's happening in the world, and this may be part of my frustration of not being able to keep up with everything.

This probably is a major factor in it all. Overall gun violence has been on a downward trend for the past 30 years, with a few cities seeing an upturn over the past few years that's so small there's a debate as to whether or not it's even real. Yet with the way some people talk about gun crime you'd think we where living in the 70s where random daylight shootings in the streets where the norm in pretty much every major city.

I don't know much about crime rates and fluctuations between the years. That said, plenty of terrible things have happened this year, and even if rates are going down, it's taking a toll on me in a way. That, and even if crime is lower than it has even been, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be considerations being put forth to lower it even more. In my various jobs over the years, it's that fight for perfection that stops things from sliding down, because while nothing is ever perfect, striving for it should help keep things from getting worse.

More was building off what you said. Wasnt disagreeing with you.

Zontar:

But that's life I suppose, nothing's perfect, but things can always be made better even if we're better off then any who came before us.

Then why are you so critical of everyone who actually wants to do that?

Saelune:

Zontar:

But that's life I suppose, nothing's perfect, but things can always be made better even if we're better off then any who came before us.

Then why are you so critical of everyone who actually wants to do that?

Because the people who you think are going to make things better, are going to do what they always do when they come to power and make things so much worst. There's a reason why they required violence to take and retain power and are incapable of doing so at the ballot box and using proper debate.

Zontar:

Saelune:

Zontar:

But that's life I suppose, nothing's perfect, but things can always be made better even if we're better off then any who came before us.

Then why are you so critical of everyone who actually wants to do that?

Because the people who you think are going to make things better, are going to do what they always do when they come to power and make things so much worst. There's a reason why they required violence to take and retain power and are incapable of doing so at the ballot box and using proper debate.

erttheking:

Catnip1024:
I mean... can we not at least wait until identities are confirmed before we start making racially charged remarks about theoretical identities of the attacker? The bodies aren't even cold and you're starting with the politically shit-slinging.

I know I'm not one for the moral high ground, but at least I like to have the facts with me in my little moral trench.

Hey, feel free to prove me wrong, but I think we both know that's a long shot. If he had been brown it would've all over the news and so would the word terrorist. We saw this with the Vegas shooter, it's not rocket science. But hey, you go ahead and get mad at me for half a sentence that expresses anger for people who jump to conclusions with shootings, the thing you have a problem with me for doing when I doubt you'd be that upset if this guy was brown and everyone was calling him a terrorist.

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out patterns in something that has become disgustingly fucking routine. I'm fed up with this whole fucking circus act we call a country. I know we've been through this fucking song and dance enough to have a well planned out routine, but I don't feel like following it.

EDIT: Oh look at that. I was right. Because it was an easy conclusion to make.

"It's ok when I do it because I'm angry." Since it's become a point scoring game, there was another attack by the "Religion of Peace" on New York a few days ago.

ex951753:

"It's ok when I do it because I'm angry." Since it's become a point scoring game, there was another attack by the "Religion of Peace" on New York a few days ago.

There's a bit of a difference between predicting pathetically obvious trends in the media and stereotyping a billion people. But sure, act like the two are in anyway comparable.

I can't really say I'm surprised, but...well, I am kinda surprised to see this happening again so soon.

The guy was ex-service, dishonourably discharged, and was an assault perp. His victims being their spouse and child.

The gun he used bought after conviction.

How's that total lack of background checking working out for you?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The guy was ex-service, dishonourably discharged, and was an assault perp. His victims being their spouse and child.

The gun he used bought after conviction.

How's that total lack of background checking working out for you?

There is no "total lack of background check", a DD or assault conviction would both be an instant disqualification on a NICS check. So it was either bought through an intermediary (called a "straw purchase" and already immensely illegal, unless the ATF decides to allow a bunch as part of a fucktarded sting operation against the cartels), or via a private purchase. And before someone goes off about the "gun show loophole", that's 1) not a loophole, and 2) not something that can be regulated in any practical way without massive civil rights and constitutional violations.

Ravinoff:

There is no "total lack of background check", a DD or assault conviction would both be an instant disqualification on a NICS check. So it was either bought through an intermediary (called a "straw purchase" and already immensely illegal, unless the ATF decides to allow a bunch as part of a fucktarded sting operation against the cartels), or via a private purchase. And before someone goes off about the "gun show loophole", that's 1) not a loophole, and 2) not something that can be regulated in any practical way without massive civil rights and constitutional violations.

1: It was a sporting goods store.

2: Self-declaring your prior convictions (or not) and nobody bothering to fact check them is still a total lack of background checking. After all, his purchase went unexamined for a year.

3: Where does it state a cooling off period to allow for appropriate background checking violate constitutionality? 9th Cir., found it well within the constitution to allow Californian state law of 10 days to be sound.

This is perfectly a situation where a mass shooting could be stopped if federal and state authorities had additional funding and restrictions to prevent arms falling into the hands of the wrong people. How does it violate civil liberty to wait ten days for actual processing?

Care to show me where?

Pretty sure it doesn't violate civil liberties to wait a day for customs to process your cargo. Prettysure it doesn't violate your civil liberty to wait 5 business days to process your application for a visa. Pretty sure it doesn't violate your civil liberty for having a doctor's prescription before you buy controlled substances.

But guns? That's what people think their civil liberty is being crossed on? Not their privacy, not their mobility, not their bodily autonomy ... no, guns are something we should be worried about regulating concerning the mental health and potential criminality of interested buyers?

Ravinoff:
And before someone goes off about the "gun show loophole", that's 1) not a loophole, and 2) not something that can be regulated in any practical way without massive civil rights and constitutional violations.

...really? How hard is it to pass a law making it illegal to sell guns at a gun show?

Edit: Okay, "how hard" was a poor choice of words. Obviously, in America it's super hard. My point was more "why the hell are gun shows and private transactions regulated less than sales from gun shops?"

I mean, only pharmacists can sell drugs. Why do private citizens in the US get to freely sell guns?

bastardofmelbourne:

Ravinoff:
And before someone goes off about the "gun show loophole", that's 1) not a loophole, and 2) not something that can be regulated in any practical way without massive civil rights and constitutional violations.

...really? How hard is it to pass a law making it illegal to sell guns at a gun show?

It's not talking about gun shows only, it refers to any private sale. Which cannot be forced to go through background checks because of privacy and undue burden, and can't be federally restricted very simply because of the Tenth Amendment (which I'll remind everyone is also the defence for state-level marijuana legalization).

Addendum_Forthcoming:

1: It was a sporting goods store.

2: Self-declaring your prior convictions (or not) and nobody bothering to fact check them is still a total lack of background checking. After all, his purchase went unexamined for a year.

3: Where does it state a cooling off period to allow for appropriate background checking violate constitutionality? 9th CCoA found it well within the Constitution to allow Californian state law of 10 days to be sound.

This is perfectly a situation where a mass shooting could be stopped if federal and state authorities had additional funding and restrictions to prevent arms falling into the hands of the wrong people. How does it violate civil liberty to wait ten days for actual processing?

Well, to start with, if that story is accurate, hoooly shit I would not want to be working at that store right about now. Someone's about to spend a very long time in federal prison. Second, the cooling-off period isn't a background check issue. Until the NICS check clears, a dealer is legally not allowed to sell a gun to ANYONE. The California law is a hamfisted attempt to prevent people buying large numbers of guns at once, and of course the 9th ruled it legal. Of the cases that made it to the Supreme Court under appeal after a ruling from the 9th Circuit, 80% were subsequently overturned.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But guns? That's what people think their civil liberty is being crossed on? Not their privacy, not their mobility, not their bodily autonomy ... no, guns are something we should be worried about regulating concerning the mental health and potential criminality of interested buyers?

I can see why you'd be confused, being from Australia. The thing is, guns are America's twig and berries. Any sort of regulation on them is akin to being nationally castrated.

While I feel sad for individuals we decide to sacrifice on the altar of guns this country has built, I've stopped feeling sad for the US as a whole. Not enough of us actually want to change, so really, we kinda deserve this. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then guns are the US's psychosis.

bastardofmelbourne:
"why the hell are gun shows and private transactions regulated less than sales from gun shops?"

Same reason people on the terrorist no fly list can still purchase up to 50 pounds of explosives a day without questions.

Same reason there is a 3 day limit on the NICS test (if the FBI does not respond in 3 days the shop / FFL can legally finalise the sale). Dylann Roof obtained the firearm he used to murder nine people due to this exemption.

Same reason there is little to no government funded research on firearm control or into the costs of easy access to firearms.

The NRA does not allow it.

Ravinoff:

Well, to start with, if that story is accurate, hoooly shit I would not want to be working at that store right about now. Someone's about to spend a very long time in federal prison. Second, the cooling-off period isn't a background check issue. Until the NICS check clears, a dealer is legally not allowed to sell a gun to ANYONE. The California law is a hamfisted attempt to prevent people buying large numbers of guns at once, and of course the 9th ruled it legal. Of the cases that made it to the Supreme Court under appeal after a ruling from the 9th Circuit, 80% were subsequently overturned.

For starters;

1: You haven't actually shown me how it's unconstitutional.

2: I'm not sure, given the purchase was in Texas, as far as I'm aware. As in Texas, it allows ex-cons to carry assault rifles and only bars them access to handguns, shotguns or machineguns, assuming they had a licence to begin with? ... and assumedly machine pistols(?). How do they classify machine pistols and SMGs (if such distinctions are made)? I think the machinegun argument would disallow any sustained fire weapons? Which I would imagine would bar the Steyr AUG conversion kits as well despite being an assault rifle?

I didn't see a proviso for them, so I'm in the dark on that.

Regardless, handguns makes sense because handguns actually do the majority of homicidal slayings with firearms, but the justification to allow ex-cons access to assault rifles as the state considered them "defensive weapons" fucking baffles me. The AR-15 is still the spree-killer weapon of choice... singularly responsible for the worst mass shootings in the country.

http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/
Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War...
Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers ?this is a communist revolution? before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times.
image
...
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.

No sources provided.

ETA... some analysis
http://www.newsweek.com/sutherland-springs-shooter-devin-patrick-kelley-was-antifa-according-far-right-702338

The people who fake this stuff are utter sociopaths.

Zontar:

As ironic as you're trying to make this sound, it is telling that for white Christians to actually catch up to the rate of such incidents as we see from the Muslim minority in Western countries you'd need a lot more of such attacks to happen.

Dude. Do you not understand the concept of citing a source?

because the American far left seems to have failed Maths

This is an interesting point for you to make. You're claiming that the American far left has failed math and economics, but also have previously asserted that one of the strongholds of the American far left are elite universities like UC Berkeley.

Plus, despite your insistence that the math would support your view, you haven't actually linked any data. Or are we just basing this off your feelings?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

For starters;

1: You haven't actually shown me how it's unconstitutional.

2: I'm not sure, given the purchase was in Texas, as far as I'm aware. As in Texas, it allows ex-cons to carry assault rifles and only bars them access to handguns, shotguns or machineguns, assuming they had a licence to begin with? ... and assumedly machine pistols(?). How do they classify machine pistols and SMGs (if such distinctions are made)? I think the machinegun argument would disallow any sustained fire weapons? Which I would imagine would bar the Steyr conversion kits as well despite being an assault rifle?

I didn't see a proviso for them, so I'm in the dark on that.

Regardless, handguns makes sense because handguns actually do the majority of homicidal slayings with firearms, but the justification to allow ex-cons access to assault rifles as the state considered them "defensive weapons" fucking baffles me. The AR-15 is still the spree-killer weapon of choice.... singularly responsible for the worst mass shootings in the country.

#1: 10th amendment. The Federal government is only given the power to regulate interstate commerce, a gun sale crossing state lines (eg. someone in Kansas buys a gun from someone in Ohio) has to go through a Federal Firearms License holder and file ATF Form 4473. However, they don't have the power to mandate that a private sale between two residents of Kansas has to go through the same, because it doesn't meet the requirement of interstate commerce. How much that provision is actually obeyed currently is a matter of some debate, but it's the same argument that's being used in defence of legal recreational marijuana at state level.

#2: I'm much fuzzier on state-level stuff than federal, if Texas somehow overrules the mandatory NICS checks and restrictions, I don't know about it. As for definitions, by the 1934 National Firearms Act, anything firing more than one bullet per trigger pull (not counting shotshells) is a machine gun. The registry for those has been closed since 1986, and preban examples command enormous prices in addition to the $200 tax stamp and very long ATF approval time to own. That means anything other than semiautomatics in pistol or rifle form are about the most regulated non-explosive weapons under US law.

As for AR-15s and so-called "assault weapons" (a political term meaning "scary-looking", as opposed to assault rifles, which fall under the above machine gun regulations)? They get the big publicity, but statistically all crimes committed with rifles are a tiny percentage both in terms of total violent crime as well as gun violence. As you said, handguns are far more commonly used, mostly shitty cheap pieces like Hi-Point, Jennings and Lorcin pistols. And in the '80s, there was a serious campaign to ban handguns, but it went nowhere despite making a lot of noise. Of course, any handgun ban now is impossible, as the Supreme Court explicitly ruled against one in Heller v. District of Columbia (2008).

Jux:

I can see why you'd be confused, being from Australia. The thing is, guns are America's twig and berries. Any sort of regulation on them is akin to being nationally castrated.

While I feel sad for individuals we decide to sacrifice on the altar of guns this country has built, I've stopped feeling sad for the US as a whole. Not enough of us actually want to change, so really, we kinda deserve this. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then guns are the US's psychosis.

I see it as the problems of dogwhistling that goes on a bit too long. You end up with political paralysis. So instead of politicians biting the punful bullet and ending their careers to do something proactive, you get politicians that put forward a motion, warble about it, then try to reach a bipartisanship that will never happen, and ultimately nothing gets done. It's kind of like gay marriage in Australia. Most Australians want it or wouldn't care, indeed there was nothing really against gay marriage since Menzies (who was the Prime Minister of the party that would later under Howard then tried to define marriage as union between a man and a woman from a lawful perspective)...

Funnily enough, the Marriage Act of 1961 had nothing to do with marriage equality but rather a formaldecree that as long as lawfully consenting partners government shouldn't be involved. Which disallowed child marriages, arranged marriages, polygamy, incest and beastiality (because lower animals can't lawfully consent). The reason why the government had to formalize its opinions of 'what marriage is lawfully' to begin with, because an instance where a white person wanted to lawfully wed an aboriginal Australian and was refused a marriage certificate.

So it was all about the government saying; "Look, we're not allowing individual people nor government to decide what lawful marriages and its aspects are, based on something so stupid as individual opinion..."

Which makes sense, you only want your government to interfere in the process of marriage when you suspect it will cause dilemma in the courts in terms of separation, or when minors are threatened, or people are removed of their right to private contracts. After all, you can't marry unconsenting adults because, once again, a legal nightmare that breaks other laws.

And that was the same Marriage Act that lasted almost half a century until the Howard government.

But then what happened, instead of the opposition party acting like an opposition party at the time we needed it to act like an opposition party, we ended up with two Christian conservatives in opposition (Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard) and then leadership of said people when the Liberal/National Coalition was voted out.

Then we got another Christian conservative in LNP opposition who they then came into power (Tony Abbott). Who lasted a whole of two years before being ousted from power by Malcolm Turnbull ... who has mouthed semi-support of marriage equality, but to secure the wishes of their Coalition partners kept putting it off and saying; "Australia should have a say via plebiscite."

And then the Labor Party, using marriage equality as a trump card to secure a part of the 70+% of people that want to end Howard's amendments and add in guarantees of marriage equality have said; "Hey LGBTQ Australians, Labor is on your side! Even though we're equally responsible in the first place!"

So something that should never of happened has now taken 16 years to have a shot of correcting, and roughly $200,000,000 in taxpayer money to have a plebiscite no one should of had, about an issue that never ever mattered, concerning a group of people that had a federal government actively targeting them despite being what one could consider unconstitutional to create lawful disenfranchisement.

Given it removed of a group of people impartiality as to contract that should never have been a government's ability to alter or make alienated from the common people in the first place.

-------------

And I liken the same thing to gun control in the U.S.

Decades of people dog whistling and refusing to make an actual stand on an issue because it's 'politically suicidal'. The product of one group of people that don't care because it will buy them votes and party funding from lobbyists, and a group who don't care because appearing to care will cost them votes and lobbyist funding.

erttheking:

Catnip1024:
I mean... can we not at least wait until identities are confirmed before we start making racially charged remarks about theoretical identities of the attacker? The bodies aren't even cold and you're starting with the politically shit-slinging.

I know I'm not one for the moral high ground, but at least I like to have the facts with me in my little moral trench.

Hey, feel free to prove me wrong, but I think we both know that's a long shot. If he had been brown it would've all over the news and so would the word terrorist. We saw this with the Vegas shooter, it's not rocket science. But hey, you go ahead and get mad at me for half a sentence that expresses anger for people who jump to conclusions with shootings, the thing you have a problem with me for doing when I doubt you'd be that upset if this guy was brown and everyone was calling him a terrorist.

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out patterns in something that has become disgustingly fucking routine. I'm fed up with this whole fucking circus act we call a country. I know we've been through this fucking song and dance enough to have a well planned out routine, but I don't feel like following it.

EDIT: Oh look at that. I was right. Because it was an easy conclusion to make.

Well, the guy could have been black or Hispanic and still not had it considered terrorism related. Or Asian. Yah know.

Sure, your ill-informed guesswork that the shooter was part of the ethnic majority was correct on this occasion, but statistically that is kind of likely to be the case. So stop patting yourself on the back (because that's sexual harassment).

Your issue is that you are making this (and everything) entirely about race. It isn't, it's about reasons and an MO. Because say what you want about white (and Hispanic, and black) people, they tend not to be the ones committing Islamic terrorism, and they tend not to be part of a wide network.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:

Catnip1024:
I mean... can we not at least wait until identities are confirmed before we start making racially charged remarks about theoretical identities of the attacker? The bodies aren't even cold and you're starting with the politically shit-slinging.

I know I'm not one for the moral high ground, but at least I like to have the facts with me in my little moral trench.

Hey, feel free to prove me wrong, but I think we both know that's a long shot. If he had been brown it would've all over the news and so would the word terrorist. We saw this with the Vegas shooter, it's not rocket science. But hey, you go ahead and get mad at me for half a sentence that expresses anger for people who jump to conclusions with shootings, the thing you have a problem with me for doing when I doubt you'd be that upset if this guy was brown and everyone was calling him a terrorist.

I'm not going to apologize for pointing out patterns in something that has become disgustingly fucking routine. I'm fed up with this whole fucking circus act we call a country. I know we've been through this fucking song and dance enough to have a well planned out routine, but I don't feel like following it.

EDIT: Oh look at that. I was right. Because it was an easy conclusion to make.

Well, the guy could have been black or Hispanic and still not had it considered terrorism related. Or Asian. Yah know.

Sure, your ill-informed guesswork that the shooter was part of the ethnic majority was correct on this occasion, but statistically that is kind of likely to be the case. So stop patting yourself on the back (because that's sexual harassment).

Your issue is that you are making this (and everything) entirely about race. It isn't, it's about reasons and an MO. Because say what you want about white (and Hispanic, and black) people, they tend not to be the ones committing Islamic terrorism, and they tend not to be part of a wide network.

No, the people making this about race are cops and those who defend them. People who think all Muslims are terrorists, and people who blame BLM who ARENT shooting everyone as if they are.

They vaguely go "BLM (or antifa) are running amok and no one cares" while ignoring stuff like this and Vegas and all the other white mass shooters.

They blame the ethnicity when non-whites do it and when that faulty racist logic is thrown in their face they dont own up to it and stop, they just go "Yeah but this one doesnt count" or some BS like that.

Ravinoff:

#1: 10th amendment. The Federal government is only given the power to regulate interstate commerce, a gun sale crossing state lines (eg. someone in Kansas buys a gun from someone in Ohio) has to go through a Federal Firearms License holder and file ATF Form 4473. However, they don't have the power to mandate that a private sale between two residents of Kansas has to go through the same, because it doesn't meet the requirement of interstate commerce. How much that provision is actually obeyed currently is a matter of some debate, but it's the same argument that's being used in defence of legal recreational marijuana at state level.

From what I recall, California requires you to declare your firearms if you're a resident of the state upon returning, or becoming a new resident of the state of California. Which I imagine sets off alarm bells when they actively pull your file up when something looks suss. Precisely because as per in this situation, regulatory agencies barely bother. And that is not unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution that says you can buy a gun and not be under regulatory examination.

So evewn if a person from California goes to another state, buys a gun, they have to declare it (as well as pass 'background checks' @POS. And then declare it when they return. That's not unconstitutional in the same way your national gun registry is not unconstitutional, nor something like your VIN and licence plates unconstitutional.

I have a sneaking suspicion California does it this way because they have little trust in other states and their gun laws.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/ab991

But that's not unconstitutional.

#2: I'm much fuzzier on state-level stuff than federal, if Texas somehow overrules the mandatory NICS checks and restrictions, I don't know about it. As for definitions, by the 1934 National Firearms Act, anything firing more than one bullet per trigger pull (not counting shotshells) is a machine gun. The registry for those has been closed since 1986, and preban examples command enormous prices in addition to the $200 tax stamp and very long ATF approval time to own. That means anything other than semiautomatics in pistol or rifle form are about the most regulated non-explosive weapons under US law.

As for AR-15s and so-called "assault weapons" (a political term meaning "scary-looking", as opposed to assault rifles, which fall under the above machine gun regulations)? They get the big publicity, but statistically all crimes committed with rifles are a tiny percentage both in terms of total violent crime as well as gun violence. As you said, handguns are far more commonly used, mostly shitty cheap pieces like Hi-Point, Jennings and Lorcin pistols. And in the '80s, there was a serious campaign to ban handguns, but it went nowhere despite making a lot of noise. Of course, any handgun ban now is impossible, as the Supreme Court explicitly ruled against one in Heller v. District of Columbia (2008).

Well this might be because of different national descriptors of firearms, but here we didn't call something a 'machine gun' unless of a certain barrel legnth, and a certain capacity of sustained fire. Like a FA centrefire L1A1 being called an 'battle rifle' (or an 'automatic rifle' specifically for the FA variant), but not a machine gun.

Secondly it really doesn't matter about how tiny it is. The thing is that Australia had a very low homicide rate prior the large scale weapons ban and buyback program.

The problem was that anybody that lost their fucking nut could inflict horrific casualties constrained to a single urban community.

27 deaths in a small town leads to widescale grief and local economic catastrophe, for instance. Moreover it makes police apprehension of criminals far less successful. Because if people do lose their nut, the potentiality of innocent loss of life condensed into a small enough area creats long term distress for the community.

What we found is by implementing the ban, the guns were constrained to the organized criminal syndicates ... who would then only use them against other criminal syndicate members. But there is a far greater chance police will apprehend them alive, so that they can face their time in front of a judge. And more people getting a trial, rather than ending up 'death by cop', is itself a deterrent.

After all, how often do these spree killers turn the gun on themselves, or point them at police hoping the cops will do it for them?

Oh no, sure you can kill someone with a knife. You may even kill multiple people with a knife. But the police will catch you, they'll have far higher degrees of success throwing you into the public spotlight, far higher rates of success of facing public condemnation and the weight of the law.

It's not that Port Arthur (our last mass shooting) was specifically so awful (even though it was pretty awful in terms of total victims, I think it was the biggest spree-kill with firearms amongst a civilian populace by a civilian lunatic at the time) ... Australia had mass shootings before, despite a low crime and homicide rate.

It's that despite that low homicide rate these spree-killings often happened in subrural areas, where mental health services were inappropriate to deal with the massive numbers of firearm suicides and other deporessive, anxiety or psychotic disorders.

So what ended up happening was townswould be gutted. Where everyone in the community knew possibly up to a dozen or more slain in one act of horror.

That's what drove politicians to act.

I mean we've had politicians assassinated with firearms. Two years prior, independent state MP John Newman was ventilated, the seat of Cabramatta in Sydney.

That didn't raise the weapons ban.

What specifically did it was Australia facing the consequences of the single largest death toll by then the worst mass-shooting in the world in what is ostensibly a peaceful little coastal township in Tasmania. And so Australians, probably for the first time given the immensity of the tragedy, got to see what the cost was like as people were constantly interviewed from there.

During the weapons debate, journalists went back and Australians then realized that while 'time heals', it was taking an extended smoko... because the injured cops in the shoot out were still looking injured years on. The average store owner was as if in a non-responsive state or started crying when the subject was brought up....

That's what put the weapons ban over the line. The fact that towns take a long time to bounce back after such horror.

Kwak:

http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/
Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War...
Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers ?this is a communist revolution? before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times.
image
...
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.

No sources provided.

ETA... some analysis
http://www.newsweek.com/sutherland-springs-shooter-devin-patrick-kelley-was-antifa-according-far-right-702338

The people who fake this stuff are utter sociopaths.

That's so stupid it's almost funny, if it weren't for it being about a serious issue where people were murdered and all.

Wonder if anyone around here gets their news from there.

Zontar:

Super Cyborg:
I fear that over time I will reach a point that I just accept these events.

Well it's just as London's mayor Sadiq Khan has stated: this is just part and parcel of it all.

Tiny town in the middle of rural Texas vs London, a city of millions. Yep all kinds of similarities there. Never change Zontar. We need the constant reminders from you that the extreme right can never be trusted to argue honestly.

Kwak:

http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/
Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War...
Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers ?this is a communist revolution? before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times.
image
...
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.

No sources provided.

ETA... some analysis
http://www.newsweek.com/sutherland-springs-shooter-devin-patrick-kelley-was-antifa-according-far-right-702338

The people who fake this stuff are utter sociopaths.

If I wasn't so late to this thread I would have called it on the first page. The Right's playbook always defaults to Muslim first. When that is provably false they move next to Antifa. Now I fucking hate Antifa. They precisely the wrong way to get whatever the fuck their point is across but they have not been conclusively tied to any mass murders yet. But these Trump dick sucking fuckwads need to blame something anything but their paper thin laws preventing crazies from accessing the guns used in these atrocities.

Never mind that evidence is mounting that this will become more commonplace as more and more people decide to take their live's problems out on innocents. We got to protect our Sky Fairy given rights to our guns. Yeee-fucking-haaaa.

Wow, just wow, I don't think I've seen a thread OP displaying so much of the Horseshoe theory in recent memory. And absolutely no care for the victims, just pushing politics.

Wonder why he didn't open a thread about the attack in Manhattan last week, guess who gives a fuck when it doesn't conform to a narrative.

Remember when Columbine shocked people? Those were the days. Now there's a shooting every month and no one cares as much. It's the new normal. I also can't help but notice the irony that 27 church going Texans were killed. Likely gun lovers. If only people would stop to think that this shit can happen to anyone, including them. Maybe then they'd be able to recognize what the rest of the civilized world already knows - you can't just flood the country with stuff designed to kill people and call it freedom.

Kwak:

http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/
Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War...
Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers ?this is a communist revolution? before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times.
image
...
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.

No sources provided.

ETA... some analysis
http://www.newsweek.com/sutherland-springs-shooter-devin-patrick-kelley-was-antifa-according-far-right-702338

The people who fake this stuff are utter sociopaths.

I have a tenner on Zontar quoting this in another thread as proof within the week.

renegade7:
You're claiming that the American far left has failed math and economics, but also have previously asserted that one of the strongholds of the American far left are elite universities like UC Berkeley.

Yes, how could people who are in fields that have nothing to do with mathematics or economics possibly take those fields hostage if they don't know these things that have nothing to do with their fields?

CheetoDust:
I have a tenner on Zontar quoting this in another thread as proof within the week.

Why? I'm not the one who tends to use blogs as a source when citing things (inb4 "but you didn't site the same fucking statistics you and others have posted here dozens of times over the past 2 years that people keep demanding because they want to waste your time and literally nothing more").

I see the hypocrisy continues unabated. When the shooter is white, don't you dare politicize this! Thoughts and prayers only! What's that? The alt-right are lying and trying to blame this on people inconvenient to them? Meh, nothing worth getting concerned over.

When the shooter was a Muslim immigrant, ban the terrifying Sand People! We don't have time to mourn the victims, we must take action now!

It would be a little bit less galling if the right wingers trying to shame me for not talking about the victims enough didn't so transparently disregard the value of human life in literally every other issue.

My thoughts are with the survivors... I want to believe that soon, more control will be implemented in gun ownership.

I don't care about current rules. Something needs to be done.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here