Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

Mass shootings on the radar again.

Recommended Posts

The shooting in El Paso went for almost 20 minutes before police were able to subdue the shooter who then surrendered.  The shooting in Dayton ended within 1 minute with the shooter getting shot killed.

One could follow the silly narrative that Walmart is supposedly a "gun free" zone, so the shooter was already breaking one law right there, and since this was a "gun free" zone, he felt safe enough to carry out his acts of terror.  Ditto for the Dayton shooter with the exception of a "gun free" zone, and given there was a "good guy with a gun" who ended the rampage before it really got going.....

What would have happened to an armed civilian had he dropped the El Paso shooter in "Gun Free" zone?

What is the answer to stopping these senseless acts?  

A group of doctors are attempting to find an answer http://www.drsforamerica.org/issues/gun-violence-research-ban  but needs congress to let the CDC research gun violence.

Maybe the AMA will allow more exposure to individual's mental health issues, but SF doesn't know if that is the right direction either.....

SF hasn't started carrying his handgun again, yet.......

I don't know.  I know I am tired of having my flag lowered to half staff......

  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “mental health” excuse is getting pretty lame. 

These are premeditated acts of terrorism. Let’s call it what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

The “mental health” excuse is getting pretty lame. 

These are premeditated acts of terrorism. Let’s call it what it is.

Carried out by sick individuals.

Kamala Harris' answer.....

“I’m actually prepared to take executive action to put in place rules that improve this situation,” Harris said via the Washington Examiner, specifying that she would not wait for Congress to pass legislation or hand over the issue for Congress to address.

“I also have as part of my background and experience working on this issue, when I was attorney general [of California], and we put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists — a list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others and another list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership,” she added.

How would the above method(s) stopped either of the last 3 mass casualty events?  None of the shooters would have been on either lists.....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dayton shooter had a rape list and hit list that friends knew about.  Did they report it and nothing was done?  I don't know what could legally be done.

He killed his own sister.  I don't own a gun but fully support the 2nd.  Banning this gun or that gun, is it really going to make a difference?  Vehicles and bombs can do just as much destruction.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, swordfish said:

Carried out by  sick  angry individuals domestic terrorists.

Fixed that for you. 

Edited by gonzoron
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Fixed that for you. 

That's your opinion.   If calling these terrorist POS's "angry" versus "sick" makes you feel better, more power to you.  

Bottom line is that 2 idiot snowflakes who obviously couldn't deal with life today picked up weapons, used them unlawfully and murdered a bunch of innocent people.  Neither you nor I, nor any politician did it.  And (IMHO) no new law except someway of being able to predict behavior could have prevented it.  

  • Like 3
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the bottom line is there have been many mass shootings and nothing has been done.  I am not saying make a new law, but that is an option.  There has been no increase in security measures done by the government.  Trying something is better than doing nothing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Neither you nor I, nor any politician did it.  And (IMHO) no new law except someway of being able to predict behavior could have prevented it.

I've never claimed otherwise. Not sure why you're even bringing up "new laws" when no one on this thread has called for them either. 

 

7 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 If calling these terrorist POS's

Now we're making progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

I've never claimed otherwise. Not sure why you're even bringing up "new laws" when no one on this thread has called for them either. 

 

Now we're making progress.

So you think terrorists are mentally stable.......?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swordfish said:

So you think terrorists are mentally stable.......?

 

No. Nor do I think the ones who inspire them are.

 

 

 

From Barack Obama:

Image

Edited by gonzoron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/08/05/weekend-gun-violence-mass-shootings/

CHICAGO (CBS) — Dozens of people were shot in Chicago over the weekend, including two mass shootings in less than three hours on Sunday. In all, seven people were killed and 46 others were wounded in shootings since Friday evening.

More than a dozen people were wounded, one of them fatally, in a pair of mass shootings in the Lawndale neighborhood early Sunday.

The first shooting happened around 1:20 a.m. near Roosevelt and Francisco in Douglas Park.

Police said a group of people was standing in the park, when someone opened fire from a black Chevrolet Camaro. Seven people were wounded:

• A 21-year-old man shot in the groin was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition;
• A 25-year-old woman shot in the arm and leg was taken to Mount Sinai, where she was stabilized;
• A 20-year-old man shot in the right side was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was stabilized;
• A 19-year-old woman shot in the right leg was taken to Stroger, where she was stabilized;
• A 22-year-old woman was taken to Mount Sinai, where she was stabilized;
• A 21-year-old man shot in the left leg was taken to Mount Sinai, where he was stabilized;
• A 23-year-old man shot in the chest and hand took himself to Mount Sinai, where he was stabilized.

Less than three hours later, eight people were shot in Lawndale, near 18th and Kildare around 3:45 a.m., when unknown s hooters opened fire on a large group of people at a block party. One man, 33-year-old Demetrius Flowers, was killed, and seven other people were wounded:

• A 35-year-old man shot in the forehead was taken to Mount Sinai, where he was stabilized;
• A 28-year-old man shot in the hip was taken to Mount Sinai, where he was stabilized;
• A 27-year-old man shot in the foot was taken to Mount Sinai, where he was stabilized;
• A 28-year-old man shot in the leg Mount Sinai, where he was treated and released;
• A 14-year-old boy was shot in the thigh, and was taken to Stroger, where he was stabilized;
• A 21-year-old woman suffered a graze wound to the thumb, and was treated and released at St. Margaret Hospital;
• A 19-year-old woman was shot in the head, and was taken to Stroger, where she was treated and released.

Flowers’ father, said it’s the second son he’s lost to violence.

“Please stop. It’s killing our families, it’s destroying the fiber of our communities. We have to stop this senseless killing, because if we don’t, there’s nothing going to be left. There’s nothing going to be left,” Keith Flowers said.

No one was in custody for either of the mass shootings in Lawndale.

Kind but hollow words from the former President.......Was this part of the ethnic cleansing in the former President's former hometown over the weekend he was referring to?  282 murders year to date in Chicago......

Edited by swordfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And THERE it is! Chicago! We all knew it was coming, lol. Predictable rubbish.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish?   FACTS!  2 mass shootings - very much ignored by the national media because it was Chicago......With the strictest gun laws in the country.....

You don't want to bring this dynamic into the conversation, fine - ignore it.......Along with Baltimore, L.A., Oakland/San Fran, etc.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 FACTS! 

Apples to Oranges when comparing to El Paso, where the motivated shooter drove over 10 hours for a premediated and well planned massacre inspired by systematic rhetoric from the President of the United States. Sugarcoat it all you want, that's what happened.

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

And THERE it is! Chicago! We all knew it was coming, lol. Predictable rubbish.

Antifa comparisons coming up next.

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chicago situation is relevant in two respects. First, it demonstrates that the problem of gun violence in the U.S. is not simply a mental health issue. There are insane shooters, and stoned shooters, and criminal shooters, and racist shooters, and religious-fanatics shooters, and just evil shooters.  Attempts to suss out in advance who the next mass shooter is by focusing on such traits -- watch that guy because he's a Muslim; keep tabs on that fella because he's got a prescription for Xanax; send the cops to look into that guy, he talks about Hitler on 8chan -- are futile. If you want to reduce gun violence in the U.S., you have to make it more diffficult for anyone and everyone  to get a gun, or to get guns (and accessories) of a type that can shoot lots of bullets very quickly.

Second, Chicago shows that it is impossible to do the above simply with local (city- and state-level) laws, it will take national legislation. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

The Chicago situation is relevant in two respects. First, it demonstrates that the problem of gun violence in the U.S. is not simply a mental health issue. There are insane shooters, and stoned shooters, and criminal shooters, and racist shooters, and religious-fanatics shooters, and just evil shooters.  Attempts to suss out in advance who the next mass shooter is by focusing on such traits -- watch that guy because he's a Muslim; keep tabs on that fella because he's got a prescription for Xanax; send the cops to look into that guy, he talks about Hitler on 8chan -- are futile. If you want to reduce gun violence in the U.S., you have to make it more diffficult for anyone and everyone  to get a gun, or to get guns (and accessories) of a type that can shoot lots of bullets very quickly.

Second, Chicago shows that it is impossible to do the above simply with local (city- and state-level) laws, it will take national legislation. 

 

That’s the key point ... and the [so far] insoluble dilemma. You can’t find the shooters beforehand in any practical sense. So the key is to make the means less available to them ... and walk the tightrope between the 2nd Amendment and real security steps. You can’t take away guns, but you can constitutionally make them less effective for mass shootings: limit magazine size, no bump stocks, no conversion kits, no armor piercing ammo. All of these measures pass constitutional muster. And all of them have been vigorously opposed by the gun lobby, employing the intellectually lazy “slippery slope” line of reasoning. It’s no longer a question of constitutional law (if it ever was). It’s a question of politics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bobref said:

That’s the key point ... and the [so far] insoluble dilemma. You can’t find the shooters beforehand in any practical sense. So the key is to make the means less available to them ... and walk the tightrope between the 2nd Amendment and real security steps. You can’t take away guns, but you can constitutionally make them less effective for mass shootings: limit magazine size, no bump stocks, no conversion kits, no armor piercing ammo. All of these measures pass constitutional muster. And all of them have been vigorously opposed by the gun lobby, employing the intellectually lazy “slippery slope” line of reasoning. It’s no longer a question of constitutional law (if it ever was). It’s a question of politics.

These items will still be produced and sold on the black market,  much like drugs.   What is that saying "If bump stocks are outlawed............... "

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?: https://reason.com/2019/08/05/does-common-sense-gun-safety-legislation-make-sense-as-a-response-to-the-el-paso-and-dayton-shootings/

Quote

....

Consider the rifle used in El Paso. Judging from security camera images, it had a fixed stock, which is OK under the latest version of the proposed federal "assault weapon" ban, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.). The pistol grip would have to go, and so probably would the "upper handguard," which seems to qualify as a forbidden "barrel shroud." But you would still be left with a weapon that fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle energy.

One "common-sense" gun control policy that might have practical significance in the context of a mass shooting is a limit on the size of magazines. Feinstein's bill, for example, would ban "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds (such as the magazines used in El Paso and Dayton, but also the magazines that come standard with many kinds of rifles and handguns). As with the "assault weapon" ban, that provision would leave millions of newly illegal products in circulation. But if it made magazines that hold more than 10 rounds more expensive and harder to come by, it could theoretically encourage some mass shooters to use 10-round magazines, which would force them to switch magazines more frequently.

Since it takes just a few seconds to switch magazines, it's not clear how often this constraint would make a difference in attacks on unarmed people. But we can't rule out the possibility that it would occasionally help victims escape or resist. By the same token, however, a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds can make a crucial difference for people using guns to defend themselves against attacks, especially when they are confronted by multiple armed assailants.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez emphasized that point, citing actual incidents, when he ruled last March that California's 10-round magazine limit is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. "California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny," he said.

Writing in The New York Times, SUNY Cortland political scientist Robert Spitzer calls that conclusion "startling," "suspect," and "downright strange." Yet it hardly seems strange to point out that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without switching magazines can be important in self-defense—a point that current and retired police officers make every time they demand exemptions from laws like California's. Indeed, the case for banning "large capacity" magazines hinges on the same observation as the case against banning them: A few seconds can be the difference between life and death.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?: https://reason.com/2019/08/05/does-common-sense-gun-safety-legislation-make-sense-as-a-response-to-the-el-paso-and-dayton-shootings/

 

If you need more than 10 rounds for self defense,

1. You're a terrible shot. Practice more.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

 

Second, Chicago shows that it is impossible to do the above simply with local (city- and state-level) laws, it will take national legislation. 

 

You mean like federal marijuana laws?  Federal immigration laws and sanctuary cities?  Prohibition law?  Who's going to enforce them?  Current staffing of ATF?

Are track records for national laws that impressive?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Got anything from El Paso?

My thoughts and prayers also go out to all those shooters in Chicago who need mental health treatment. 

I understand its way simpler for you to lock all shooting motives down to one causal factor.

But in reality, life isn't that simple.....

Guess all those pulling the trigger in Chicago this weekend were just simply "angry"......

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...