Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

Mass shootings on the radar again.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

I have few Jarts stored away.  Want to buy some?  PM me.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48297354/

 

Hasbro just needs to add a scope to them Jarts and re-brand them as "home defense projectiles" protected by the 2nd Amendment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Are you serious? A staged demonstration with folks who know what the point of the demonstration is supposed to be?! 

Did you watch the entire video? While Christy is clearly not an expert, reloading mags didn't take much more time. I have no plans on doing a mass shooting any time soon, and I practice mag changes at least with handguns. I would ass-u-me someone with a mass shooting in mind would practice a little.

 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

 So after the shooter has been hit with a chair and wrestled to the ground, granny grabbed his magazine. 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Article claims the shooter paused to reload his shotgun, I found no reference to a mag change.

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

I don't even have to look at everytown to know what it says, it will be the opposite of the NRA's data.

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

It is the way market forces work. There are other examples with comparable numbers of goods in the market at the time they were banned -- go buy some Jarts.

I understand how the market works. I'm not denying they will be hoarded and the price will go up exponentially. If passed on some arbitrary date millions of high capacity mag owners become criminals if they don't destroy their legally purchased magazines. Just as an assault weapon ban, there will be a rash of boating accidents. 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Makes my point: as political winds shift, they can change the regulation again. Laws, once passed, are not quite as easy to "undo" (think Obamacare.)

I was under the assumption that you we challenging that it required passing of a law to ban bump stocks. 

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

You are conflating the right with particluat potential modes of exercising it. If your favorite form of poster board was banned because it contained toxic chemicals, your right to free speech would not be taken away. You'd just have to make your placards for the gun rights march with some slightly less nice poster board. 

I'm not conflating anything. Have you read the Friedman or Heller decisions? 

Share this post


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

Hasbro just needs to add a scope to them Jarts and re-brand them as "home defense projectiles" protected by the 2nd Amendment. 

Hmmm.  I smell a kickstarter campaign................

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

Did you watch the entire video? While Christy is clearly not an expert, reloading mags didn't take much more time. I have no plans on doing a mass shooting any time soon, and I practice mag changes at least with handguns. I would ass-u-me someone with a mass shooting in mind would practice a little.

Beyond the obvious fact that the video creates an ideal set of circumstances --  folks standing on a range, who are not shooting at moving human beings, rushing adrenalin and knowledge that law enforcement may be coming to kill them at any second, and with their reloading magazines laid out before them on a stand -- it does not represent a a "blind experiment" with some control mechanism:  the people involved in the video understand why it is being made, and what conclusion the people making the video want to reach. So if they are sympathetic to that desired conclusion -- which their participation in the video would imply -- they obviously can "rig" the outcome by slowing slightly their rate of fire when using the larger magazines.

Moreover, Christy's results consistently showed a few seconds of delay in the multiple mag scenario. I again refer you to the recent Dayton incident -- a crime that lasted 30 seconds in total. A few seconds of delay in that crime would have saved lives or injuries.

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

So after the shooter has been hit with a chair and wrestled to the ground, granny grabbed his magazine. 

Article claims the shooter paused to reload his shotgun, I found no reference to a mag change.

I don't even have to look at everytown to know what it says, it will be the opposite of the NRA's data.

The opportunity to hit him with the chair arose because he paused to reload another magazine.

The point of the link of the second article was to emphasize that delays to reload provide potential victims the opportunity to fight back, however long the delay may be last.  

Well then, NRA data would be equally viewed with skepticism due to apparent partisanship, you'd acknowledge?

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

I understand how the market works. I'm not denying they will be hoarded and the price will go up exponentially. If passed on some arbitrary date millions of high capacity mag owners become criminals if they don't destroy their legally purchased magazines. Just as an assault weapon ban, there will be a rash of boating accidents.  

I am probably being slow on the up take, but I don't understand the boating accident reference.

On 8/8/2019 at 9:34 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

I was under the assumption that you we challenging that it required passing of a law to ban bump stocks. 

I'm not conflating anything. Have you read the Friedman or Heller decisions? 

No, I was challenging the implication in your initial post that bump stocks are already "illegal" so passage of explicit legislation by Congress to outlaw them is not necessary. My point was that the status of bump stocks as "legal" or "illegal" has changed with regulatory interpretations because there is no explicit underlying law that clearly bans them. Regulatory interpretations can change from administration to administration; acts of (laws passed by) Congress don't.

Yes, I've read  the Friedman and Heller decisions several times, and they both clearly support my contention that reasonable limitations on particular methods of exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights do not represent unconstitutional infringements of that right (an unlawful deprivation of the essential liberty). You are going to have explain in more detail what you mean, if you are believe that those cases do not support my position that you are wrongly equating the underlying right (to "bear arms") to possible mechanisms of exercising that right (e.g., having a fully automatic machine gun, or a bazooka, or a cannon -- or a large capacity magazine, or a semi-automatic rifle, etc., etc.).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My old savage arms over/under 410 22,  both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens.   No 2nd amendment violations there, right?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


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

My old savage arms over/under 410 22,  both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens.   No 2nd amendment violations there, right?

 

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

This is the issue I see. And I know I'm going to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat. In listening to those in favor of an "assault" weapons ban, the gist of it is they want all semi-auto guns banned when it all gets boiled down. If you question "what is an assault weapon" you're accused of getting in the weeds or arguing semantics. If the issue is pressed, even double action revolvers are semi-auto aren't they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

My old savage arms over/under 410 22,  both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens.   No 2nd amendment violations there, right?

 

 

42 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

We don't know the limits, but I'd say in my opinion  that would be too restrictive under the general logic of the Heller case. (Scalia bent over backwards in Heller to avoid appearing to set hard and fast rules regarding the parameters of permissible limits on types of firearms -- his main goal was to make it clear that the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment (whatever their specific scope) are rights of indivdual persons, and not withstanding the reference to well-regulated militias in the introductory clause, are not rights of the States or right "mediated" through the States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Gun Control, Once More from the Top: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/on-gun-control-once-more-from-the-top/

Quote

...

Gun-control advocacy, as it stands today, is almost pure demagoguery. It consists mainly of urban progressives thinking up bureaucratic measures to inconvenience and humiliate federally licensed firearms dealers and the people who do business with them — one of the least criminally inclined demographics in these United States. When there are atrocities like the ones in El Paso or Dayton, the Democrats will propose new measures that would have done nothing to prevent those crimes and insist that they should be enacted anyway, for . . . some unspoken and unspeakable reason. Point out that they don’t know what they are talking about and they retreat into pop-Freudian analysis (somebody should explain to them that Sigmund Freud was a pseudoscientific fraud whose work is taken seriously by almost no one) and maybe make a sophomoric joke about gun enthusiasts compensating for some embarrassing genital insufficiencies. Which is to say, the anti-gun effort is pure Kulturkampf, having almost nothing to do with real policy issues.

Propose something as radical as, say, actually getting off our national ass and prosecuting those who violate straw-buyer laws, or pushing local authorities to get their illegal-weapons conviction rate up above 18 percent (Hey, Chicago!) of arrests and you’ll hear an uncomfortable silence, which will not be broken until somebody calls you a racist. Hundreds of firearms purchases have been wrongly approved because of defects in the background-check system, but no effort is made to recover the guns. These are real things that can be done, but what we hear instead is cheap invective and ignorant snark. (See all that talk about feral hogs in the past few days.) That’s American politics 2019: dumb and dumber.

Neil deGrasse Tyson recently found himself the target of a two-minute Twitter hate for having the bad taste to tell the truth about what I call the “Consider the Moose” issue. We make scary movies about shark attacks, but in reality we’re more likely to be killed by a moose, and much, much more likely to be killed by a cow or a mosquito. Tyson noted that for all the attention given to the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Americans are much more likely to be killed by preventable medical errors, the flu, car accidents, suicide, etc. “Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data,” he wrote. He was right, and that’s exactly what people did.

Properly understood, that is what terrorism is: spectacle.

We have some pretty good options for measures targeting ordinary workaday crime. We don’t have very good options for mass shootings. Which is to say, we have a few things we could do about the mosquitoes, but not the sharks. The measures that would be most likely to make a dent in El Paso–style shootings are the very ones that Democrats spent years promising us they’d never contemplate: prohibiting most or all firearms, including the ones most commonly used for hunting and other recreational purposes (the AR-style rifle is almost certainly the most popular hunting firearm in the United States) and the ones most commonly used for home defense (semiautomatic handguns), measures that almost certainly would, if they are to be effective, have to be enforced with heavy-handed police tactics including extensive searches and raids of private homes. Because these measures would be flatly unconstitutional, it is unlikely that voluntary compliance would be very high, and it is not beyond contemplation that some law-enforcement agencies or personnel would decline to cooperate with them.

If you want to try to repeal the Second Amendment, then we can have that conversation. If you’re trying to convince me that giving a $9-an-hour clerk at a sporting-goods store another form to fill out is all that stands between us and anarchy, then I trust you’ll forgive me for declining to take you seriously.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What (if any) of the newly anointed "enhanced background checks" laws would have been able to prevent either of the POS's in the recent events from getting weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

This is the issue I see. And I know I'm going to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat. In listening to those in favor of an "assault" weapons ban, the gist of it is they want all semi-auto guns banned when it all gets boiled down. If you question "what is an assault weapon" you're accused of getting in the weeds or arguing semantics. If the issue is pressed, even double action revolvers are semi-auto aren't they? 

Those are drafting issues and can be handled by drafting broadly and then exempting out items that fall within the definition only semantically. But it is all moot. There are some folks who'd like to see private ownership of bazookas, and folks who'd like to ban all private gun ownership. Neither's going to happen. We are going to get lots of conversation, but no action out of these recent incidents, as in the past. 

Share this post


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

Those are drafting issues and can be handled by drafting broadly and then exempting out items that fall within the definition only semantically. But it is all moot. There are some folks who'd like to see private ownership of bazookas, and folks who'd like to ban all private gun ownership. Neither's going to happen. We are going to get lots of conversation, but no action out of these recent incidents, as in the past. 

You're probably right, but I see some R's showing signs of caving. Trump's a wild card when it comes to guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/05/we-have-studied-every-mass-shooting-1966-heres-what-weve-learned-about-shooters?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2BeTU6IhfEgQiQVeijf6RcTrQcQFy9KaA0UqaVV2t4zt6xzovb8F8lLgA

We Have Studied Every Mass Shooting Since 1966. Here’s What We’ve Learned About the Shooters

Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

 
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

In the last week, more than 30 people have died in three separate mass shootings in GilroyEl Paso and Dayton, Ohio. We believe that analyzing and understanding data about who commits such massacres can help prevent more lives being lost.

For two years, we’ve been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. We’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. We’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.

Our goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although we haven’t found that mass shooters are all alike, our data do reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings we studied.

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

 

 

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

So what do these commonalities tell us about how to prevent future shootings?

One step needs to be depriving potential shooters of the means to carry out their plans. Potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures such as metal detectors and police officers. And weapons need to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensinguniversal background checkssafe storage campaigns and red-flag laws — measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

Another step is to try to make it more difficult for potential perpetrators to find validation for their planned actions. Media campaigns like #nonotoriety are helping starve perpetrators of the oxygen of publicity, and technology companies are increasingly being held accountable for facilitating mass violence. But we all can slow the spread of mass shootings by changing how we consume, produce, and distribute violent content on media and social media. Don’t like or share violent content. Don’t read or share killers’ manifestos and other hate screeds posted on the internet. We also need to study our current approaches. For example, do lockdown and active shooter drills help children prepare for the worst or hand potential shooters the script for mass violence by normalizing or rehearsing it?

We also need to, as a society, be more proactive. Most mass public shooters are suicidal, and their crises are often well known to others before the shooting occurs. The vast majority of mass shooters leak their plans ahead of time. People who see or sense something is wrong, however, may not always say something to someone owing to the absence of clear reporting protocols or fear of overreaction and unduly labeling a person as a potential threat. Proactive violence prevention starts with schools, colleges, churches and employers initiating conversations about mental health and establishing systems for identifying individuals in crisis, reporting concerns and reaching out — not with punitive measures but with resources and long-term intervention. Everyone should be trained to recognize the signs of a crisis.

Proactivity needs to extend also to the traumas in early life that are common to so many mass shooters. Those early exposures to violence need addressing when they happen with ready access to social services and high-quality, affordable mental health treatment in the community. School counselors and social workers, employee wellness programs, projects that teach resilience and social emotional learning, and policies and practices that decrease the stigma around mental illness will not just help prevent mass shootings, but will also help promote the social and emotional success of all Americans.

Our data show that mass shooters have much in common. Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/05/we-have-studied-every-mass-shooting-1966-heres-what-weve-learned-about-shooters?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2BeTU6IhfEgQiQVeijf6RcTrQcQFy9KaA0UqaVV2t4zt6xzovb8F8lLgA

We Have Studied Every Mass Shooting Since 1966. Here’s What We’ve Learned About the Shooters

Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

 
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

In the last week, more than 30 people have died in three separate mass shootings in GilroyEl Paso and Dayton, Ohio. We believe that analyzing and understanding data about who commits such massacres can help prevent more lives being lost.

For two years, we’ve been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. We’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. We’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.

Our goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although we haven’t found that mass shooters are all alike, our data do reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings we studied.

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

 

 

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

So what do these commonalities tell us about how to prevent future shootings?

One step needs to be depriving potential shooters of the means to carry out their plans. Potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures such as metal detectors and police officers. And weapons need to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensinguniversal background checkssafe storage campaigns and red-flag laws — measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

Another step is to try to make it more difficult for potential perpetrators to find validation for their planned actions. Media campaigns like #nonotoriety are helping starve perpetrators of the oxygen of publicity, and technology companies are increasingly being held accountable for facilitating mass violence. But we all can slow the spread of mass shootings by changing how we consume, produce, and distribute violent content on media and social media. Don’t like or share violent content. Don’t read or share killers’ manifestos and other hate screeds posted on the internet. We also need to study our current approaches. For example, do lockdown and active shooter drills help children prepare for the worst or hand potential shooters the script for mass violence by normalizing or rehearsing it?

We also need to, as a society, be more proactive. Most mass public shooters are suicidal, and their crises are often well known to others before the shooting occurs. The vast majority of mass shooters leak their plans ahead of time. People who see or sense something is wrong, however, may not always say something to someone owing to the absence of clear reporting protocols or fear of overreaction and unduly labeling a person as a potential threat. Proactive violence prevention starts with schools, colleges, churches and employers initiating conversations about mental health and establishing systems for identifying individuals in crisis, reporting concerns and reaching out — not with punitive measures but with resources and long-term intervention. Everyone should be trained to recognize the signs of a crisis.

Proactivity needs to extend also to the traumas in early life that are common to so many mass shooters. Those early exposures to violence need addressing when they happen with ready access to social services and high-quality, affordable mental health treatment in the community. School counselors and social workers, employee wellness programs, projects that teach resilience and social emotional learning, and policies and practices that decrease the stigma around mental illness will not just help prevent mass shootings, but will also help promote the social and emotional success of all Americans.

Our data show that mass shooters have much in common. Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

The problem is that none of these correlations have any predictive value. The number of “false positives” makes it impossible to use these statistics in any really meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly the optics look bad, and if they did in fact knowingly hire illegals offending parties need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However locally there have been several arrests for illegally making SS cards and other documents used to verify legal workers. And this is one small town in southern Indiana. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ICE can find over 600 undocumented  in one plant on the same day, the employer knew. 

Share this post


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

If ICE can find over 600 undocumented  in one plant on the same day, the employer knew. 

Then prosecute. 

Many moons ago when my wife was on the teller line and our local immigration situation started, she said the tellers knew Hispanics were using counterfeit  documents to cash checks. The banks policy was if they presented proper documentation to not question it, cash the check, and get them out the door. 

In talking to people in the construction trade in CA, SOP is stop in the morning and pick up however many workers you'll need for the day. Buy them lunch, pay them cash at the end of the day and drop them off where you picked them up. This is just how it's done. Illegal workers usually hang out where people will shop that are needing help, Home Depot, Lowes, U-Haul, lawn and garden centers. 

No argument from me, prosecute the people who hire illegals.

We the citizens of the US are just as responsible for this issue as we are imports from Pacific rim countries and China, we want the cheapest possible products, and we don't care how we get them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 7:11 AM, gonzoron said:

Image may contain: 1 person

...and this has something to do with mass shootings??  🙄

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


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

If ICE can find over 600 undocumented  in one plant on the same day, the employer knew. 

Agreed, but they had a plausible alibi - E-Verify.......

Share this post


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

...and this has something to do with mass shootings??  🙄

Nope - just a convenient dodge.........

 

On 8/9/2019 at 7:16 PM, Bobref said:

The problem is that none of these correlations have any predictive value. The number of “false positives” makes it impossible to use these statistics in any really meaningful way.

So why even try?

And more importantly would the red flag laws being bounced around have worked on either of the 2 shootings last week?

Share this post


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

Agreed, but they had a plausible alibi - E-Verify.......

That’s not an alibi, it’s an excuse. And not a very good one.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...