Once again...nothing to be done but prayers and thoughts

Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
fortune11 said:
It is terrorism if it was a brown or black guy involved and gee we should all be sitting up and doing something about it,

Why is the race card always played in response to these shootings?

Timothy McVeigh, the Tsarnaev brothers, Dylann Roof, James Fields... these guys have all been referred to as terrorists numerous times.

The shooting yesterday in Florida is (probably) not terrorism because no political motive was involved.

Totally not terrorist:

The 19-year-old accused of being the gunman in the deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida on Wednesday belonged to a white supremacist militia, the group's leader claimed Friday.

The leader of the "Republic of Florida" white supremacist militia claimed in interviews with the Anti-Defamation League and the Associated Press that accused Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz belonged to the group and trained with other members in paramilitary drills.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...roup-leader-claims-florida-school-shooter-was

Ok, so it's terrorism because of who he associated with?  No it's not, even if they are white supremacists.  He would need to have a political motive of some kind (maybe he did, but we don't know).  Was he only targeting non-white students?  So far what has been released is that he was expelled from the school, so the early facts make it look like an act of revenge.  One thing that is unique is that he was captured alive, so there shouldn't be a problem discerning his motive once more facts come in.
 
nosuchreality said:
Looks like 17 more pieces of grist for our political mills.

Everybody runs for their bottle and security blanket.  'If we just ban guns', 'It's mental health', 'it's racism', it's  ..

Those are easy, nobody really wants to tackle the long list of breakdowns that allow this to fester for years to get to this point.

We can do all those things...drugs, society, mental health, and guns.
 
Happiness said:
Perspective said:
spootieho said:
For a lot of the proposed gun legislation to be valid, the constitution needs to be amended.  If people want it to be done right, then we have to amend first.

Educate us. Why would the 2nd Amendment need to be changed? What does it mean anyway? How should it be changed?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

You've got to love the crickets.

Perspective - Cat got your tongue?
 
Liar Loan said:
Happiness said:
Perspective said:
spootieho said:
For a lot of the proposed gun legislation to be valid, the constitution needs to be amended.  If people want it to be done right, then we have to amend first.

Educate us. Why would the 2nd Amendment need to be changed? What does it mean anyway? How should it be changed?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

You've got to love the crickets.

Perspective - Cat got your tongue?

You're behind.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
Happiness said:
Perspective said:
spootieho said:
For a lot of the proposed gun legislation to be valid, the constitution needs to be amended.  If people want it to be done right, then we have to amend first.

Educate us. Why would the 2nd Amendment need to be changed? What does it mean anyway? How should it be changed?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

You've got to love the crickets.

Perspective - Cat got your tongue?

You're behind.

Oh yeah?  Please post the link to Perspective's response.
 
Liar Loan said:
Irvinecommuter said:
Liar Loan said:
Happiness said:
Perspective said:
spootieho said:
For a lot of the proposed gun legislation to be valid, the constitution needs to be amended.  If people want it to be done right, then we have to amend first.

Educate us. Why would the 2nd Amendment need to be changed? What does it mean anyway? How should it be changed?

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

You've got to love the crickets.

Perspective - Cat got your tongue?

You're behind.

Oh yeah?  Please post the link to Perspective's response.

Why does it have to be his?  Heller decision and its progeny actually affirm the right for gun control and expressly states that 2nd amendment does not protect military style assault weapons
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ult-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU

 
Common sense gun reform that keeps AR 15 type weapons  away from mental health patients and allows law enforcement to keep track of guns ( don?t we keep track of car registrations )

Is NOT  the same as

Modifying second amendment or taking ? it ? from Charles Heston s  cold dead hands ...

Please get some therapy for your macho John Wayne fantasies and  spare the damage to rest of the society
 
Burn That Belly said:
We don't need gun control more than we need mental control. Unfortunately, the US healthcare system is not in the business of curing and rehabilitation. It is in the business of controlling symptoms with drugs to reap in profits. This is a systemic problem.

You want to solve mass shootings, drunk driving, rapes, murders, you solve it from the molecular level by way of gene therapy/selective breeding. 

(Scientists have already uncovered the "anger" gene:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1176974/Keep-losing-temper-Blame-angry-gene.html)

Now we are getting somewhere ...

Would love to see analysis of blue voters and red voters and see who has more of the anger gene

Or Fox News viewers and MSNBC  viewers will do as well :)
 
Over 90% of all mass killers have one or both of these things in common:

1) They come from broken homes.

2) They were on, or currently on mood altering pharmaceuticals.

Columbine was the exception, but the rule is clear.

As for the broken home piece, both the killer and his younger brother were adopted together - which means they were either in Foster care, or from a relative who gave them up. At minimum, the killer was at least 2 years old when adopted since news reports say his younger brother was 17. Their adoptive mother was 51 at the time she took care of these kids - a remarkable age to be taking in one infant, and a 2 year old if the reported timeline checks out. In the second case, nothing is fully verified, but some are quoted about the killer being "on medication". I'm certain this will be confirmed.

This killer isn't a product of "too many guns" but rather the natural outcome of a society that sloughs off any commitment to family, disparages personal responsibility, and promotes the hyper medication of children as an easy way to control them. Before everyone clutches their pearls about how horrible this may sound, do the research yourself. Facts can be a terrible thing sometimes.

So, do we ban divorce and meds, just as everyone wants to now ban "scary looking guns" (see below) No, because you cannot reshape society overnight, just as you cannot ban lawfully obtained weapons from being misused. There can be tweaks to the law = example: If you're on any mood altering medicine, you must hand over HOUSEHOLD weapons to law enforcement for safe keeping. "but.. but... we need a gun for safety..." OK, let us hold your guns, and give you a Taser in the mean time. Want a "bump stock"? Sure, why not, as long as they can pnly be rented only at shooting range. How about "no-bail, no parole, one-and-done" for anyone using a gun during a crime?

These are the kind of common sense gun laws I think most people would support - caretaking, not confiscation, and meaningful incarceration for real criminals.

As to the argument that "no one should have access to assault rifles" an article for you to review:

[url]https://www.policeone.com/the-tacticalist/articles/7209499-Assault-weapons-vs-sporting-weapons-Whats-the-difference/[/url]


Yes, 99.9% of all mass killers have one thing in common: the use of a gun during their spree (although some now are starting to use trucks now...) If after reading what an "assault rifle" if you still think banning a weapon group because they look frightening to you will solve this problem, perhaps living in a "gun free zone" like Chicago or Washington DC might convince you otherwise.

My .02c

SGIP

 
Chicago is the big boogeyman gun advocates love to use but people forget that Indiana with it?s super lax gun laws , is right next door . Plenty of supply available there .

But yes , common sense gun reforms are what everyone can agree to ? now who will tell the NRA ?
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
Over 90% of all mass killers have one or both of these things in common:

1) They come from broken homes.

2) They were on, or currently on mood altering pharmaceuticals.

Columbine was the exception, but the rule is clear.

As for the broken home piece, both the killer and his younger brother were adopted together - which means they were either in Foster care, or from a relative who gave them up. At minimum, the killer was at least 2 years old when adopted since news reports say his younger brother was 17. Their adoptive mother was 51 at the time she took care of these kids - a remarkable age to be taking in one infant, and a 2 year old if the reported timeline checks out. In the second case, nothing is fully verified, but some are quoted about the killer being "on medication". I'm certain this will be confirmed.

This killer isn't a product of "too many guns" but rather the natural outcome of a society that sloughs off any commitment to family, disparages personal responsibility, and promotes the hyper medication of children as an easy way to control them. Before everyone clutches their pearls about how horrible this may sound, do the research yourself. Facts can be a terrible thing sometimes.

So, do we ban divorce and meds, just as everyone wants to now ban "scary looking guns" (see below) No, because you cannot reshape society overnight, just as you cannot ban lawfully obtained weapons from being misused. There can be tweaks to the law = example: If you're on any mood altering medicine, you must hand over HOUSEHOLD weapons to law enforcement for safe keeping. "but.. but... we need a gun for safety..." OK, let us hold your guns, and give you a Taser in the mean time. Want a "bump stock"? Sure, why not, as long as they can pnly be rented only at shooting range. How about "no-bail, no parole, one-and-done" for anyone using a gun during a crime?

These are the kind of common sense gun laws I think most people would support - caretaking, not confiscation, and meaningful incarceration for real criminals.

As to the argument that "no one should have access to assault rifles" an article for you to review:

[url]https://www.policeone.com/the-tacticalist/articles/7209499-Assault-weapons-vs-sporting-weapons-Whats-the-difference/[/url]


Yes, 99.9% of all mass killers have one thing in common: the use of a gun during their spree (although some now are starting to use trucks now...) If after reading what an "assault rifle" if you still think banning a weapon group because they look frightening to you will solve this problem, perhaps living in a "gun free zone" like Chicago or Washington DC might convince you otherwise.

My .02c

SGIP

And yet mass shooting don't happen elsewhere...I mean is the US the only country with those problems?
 
Irvine Commuter - perhaps those at the Bataclan may disagree with you. No matter the weapon of choice - gun, truck, bomb, knife, poison, there are plenty of mass killings that are not gun related.  Everyone loves the stat that Australia banned guns and killings were reduced... a good thing... but they fail to mention that the crime rate soared thereafter - a bad, and ongoing problem. Oh... and criminals still have access to guns.

It's not the NRA that needs convincing on this. It's the hard left, those soft of head who believe you can legislate a solution. Everyone would support something in the middle, but when those on the other side wish to focus only on bans, you end up where we are at present.

The inherent problem in the "gun control" debate isn't "guns" its "control" Do we want a Government in control of this issue? To some degree, but not to the level that everyone screams about right after a mass killing like this.

My .02c
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
It's not the NRA that needs convincing. It's the hard left, those soft of head who believe you can legislate a solution. Everyone would support something in the middle, but when those on the other side wish to focus only on bans, you end up where we are at present.

The inherent problem in the "gun control" debate isn't "guns" its "control" Do we want a Government in control of this issue? To some degree, but not to the level that everyone screams about right after a mass killing like this.

My .02c

Why not?  Don't the government control a lot of other things?  I mean even speech is subject to "control" and restrictions by the government.
 
What do you mean the U.S. is the only country?

What about the shooting July 2016 in Munich? 9 dead, 27 injured.

Or Serbia in July 2016? 5 dead, 22 injured.

What about the Norway massacre where the shooter took a ferry to a summer camp?  77 dead?

Britain's had a few. Dunblane comes to mind. 16 kids (all but one innocent 5 year olds) and a teacher.

What about the suicide bombers?

Those are just the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
 
Back
Top