The latest mass shooting

fmdog44 said:
Has anyone ever worked with a person they felt "uneasy" about? I did many decdes ago. I always worried he was going to explode at any second.
Click to expand...

There are some people on this forum that I wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about sitting in a room with my back to them.
 

Another reason we will have mass shootings in the future: Here is a mass shooting that would have happened if his mother didn't call police:
"Rose was sentenced to two years and three months in the Orange County Jail, one year in a residential mental health treatment program and five years’ probation with GPS monitoring. He also is required to stay 500 yards away from his victims and cooperate in his mental health treatment.

Hmmm, he already committed a felony by illegally carrying & being in possession of a gun that wasn't registered to him. That, alone has a 5-year maximum sentence...WITHOUT even considering the murder plot, for which there is ample evidence.
In addition he already plotted mass murders at churches & synagogues. Does anyone with half a brain think his "Treatment & counseling" will change his mind? His mental health treatment amounts to drugs - the same drugs that every mass shooter is on at the time. That's why there is a warning with these drugs: "This drug has been known to cause suicidal and homicidal tendencies."

For those who aren't familiar with sentencing guidelines, a two-year sentence means he might serve 6 months at best. Remember, O.J. Simpson's 33-year sentence for armed robbery & kidnapping? He was released after 9 years. (after he got away with two murders).
"Early release due to costs & prison overcrowding, a mental health "professional" will declare him no longer a threat & he will be released (like John Hinckley, the Manson killers & countless other violent criminals). Then, he will be in the news as another mass shooter. Gee, what a surprise.
You can blame guns all you want - which will change nothing. Or, you can think about a light sentence for someone who is already in possession of an illegal gun & is plotting mass murder being free to carry out his plan in a few months. It's our pathetic justice system that allows & encourages it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/an...of-worship-oc-man-admits/ar-AACkHOL?ocid=iehp
 
Camper6 said:
You are talking about wartime? Of course you use weapons. But in peacetime?



IMO it doesn't matter if it is thousands of whacko's with guns........or just one.......they should be approached in the same manner.



Of course it matters in wartime you can kill without getting prosecuted for murder. It's different in peacetime.



Where have I heard that one before. Guns will never be outlawed. It's part of the culture in the United States.

I'll give you another one that is always repeated after a mass murder.

"We have to do something about this". :sleeping:
Click to expand...



"You are talking about wartime? Of course you use weapons. But in peacetime?"

 If someone is approaching you/threatening you with a gun......there is no peacetime...there will be no peace, till he is dead.
 
treeguy64 said:
Would be nice if everyone actually read the posts in a given thread before posting their own.
Click to expand...
I assume you are talking about your earlier post on the rat experiment. I did read it, and simply elaborated on it from my perspective along with other things . If you feel like I "stole your thunder", I apologize sir.
 
rgp said:
The 75th anniversary of the D-day/Normandy landing is coming up this Thursday........Using the logic of some here....I guess our guys & our allies should have stormed those beaches without weapons???

Perhaps some nice words would have gotten the job done?

IMO it doesn't matter if it is thousands of whacko's with guns........or just one.......they should be approached in the same manner.

Nor does it matter if it is an enemy on the battlefield , or a criminal in your church or in ones own home.

I hate to be cliche but....don't forget....when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Click to expand...

Your post lacks logic.
First, weapons of war should be restricted to the military to be used as intended. It is a nonsense to suggest that withholding such weapons from civilians is the same as taking them away from the army or the police, coast guard etc.

There is a very big difference between an enemy on the battlefield and a criminal but in both cases there are rules, laws and conventions that apply and only those trained in such matters should be given the power of using lethal force on other human beings.

Second, it is not necessary to outlaw gun ownership to provide a safer community for innocent people in their place of work, schools, homes etc. Sensible limits on the categories of firearms that are legal and restrictions on the number and amount of bullets would go a long way but only if a national system of licencing, background checks and registration of all firearms is set up. You can be pretty sure that the military and police force keep detailed records of where all of their weapons are at all times and that when not in use, they are properly secured.

Cliches sound good but rarely hold up against the facts. An apple a day does not keep the doctor away and introducing some sensible firearms regulations does not open the way for mayhem everywhere. That horse, to use another turn of phrase, has already bolted when people are being massacred at work, in church and in the elementary school.
 
I don't have any answer for this terrible situation this world is in today. I understand some people feel the need to have a gun for protection. I also think that if an unstable person wants a gun they can get one anyway possible. It really makes me sick for the danger people are in no matter where they go. The movies,schools workplaces etc. I wish someone could come up with a way to protect the people.
 
rgp said:
Well aware of that, my reply was in regard to inhabited areas , governed by law.

And......since we're noting mistakes & or nuances of wording....it's "not" a country or state.....[not] no a country or state.
Click to expand...

Forgive us our trespasses. I have often seen Chicago quoted as being a bad city while having strict gun laws. But Chicago is not the worst in the U.S.

That at doesn't prove anything. If only it was that simple.
 
Warrigal said:
.....it is not necessary to outlaw gun ownership to provide a safer community for innocent people in their place of work, schools, homes etc. Sensible limits on the categories of firearms that are legal and restrictions on the number and amount of bullets would go a long way but only if a national system of licencing, background checks and registration of all firearms is set up. You can be pretty sure that the military and police force keep detailed records of where all of their weapons are at all times and that when not in use, they are properly secured.

Cliches sound good but rarely hold up against the facts. An apple a day does not keep the doctor away and introducing some sensible firearms regulations does not open the way for mayhem everywhere. That horse, to use another turn of phrase, has already bolted when people are being massacred at work, in church and in the elementary school.
Click to expand...


I like this train of thought
It seems a direction folks need to go

Out where I live, one must be armed…to survive

There’s as many renegades here as there are normal folks, maybe more
Somewhat wild west like, but with greater fire power

Thing is, even if yer aiming a single shot, it slows folks down, causes some to consider

…especially if it’s a 12 gauge
 
Warrigal said:
Your post lacks logic.
First, weapons of war should be restricted to the military to be used as intended. It is a nonsense to suggest that withholding such weapons from civilians is the same as taking them away from the army or the police, coast guard etc.

There is a very big difference between an enemy on the battlefield and a criminal but in both cases there are rules, laws and conventions that apply and only those trained in such matters should be given the power of using lethal force on other human beings.

Second, it is not necessary to outlaw gun ownership to provide a safer community for innocent people in their place of work, schools, homes etc. Sensible limits on the categories of firearms that are legal and restrictions on the number and amount of bullets would go a long way but only if a national system of licencing, background checks and registration of all firearms is set up. You can be pretty sure that the military and police force keep detailed records of where all of their weapons are at all times and that when not in use, they are properly secured.

Cliches sound good but rarely hold up against the facts. An apple a day does not keep the doctor away and introducing some sensible firearms regulations does not open the way for mayhem everywhere. That horse, to use another turn of phrase, has already bolted when people are being massacred at work, in church and in the elementary school.
Click to expand...



"Your post lacks logic.
First, weapons of war should be restricted to the military to be used as intended. It is a nonsense to suggest that withholding such weapons from civilians is the same as taking them away from the army or the police, coast guard etc."

You lack logic......I never specified [a] weapon, any particular type.

"There is a very big difference between an enemy on the battlefield and a criminal but in both cases there are rules, laws and conventions that apply and only those trained in such matters should be given the power of using lethal force on other human beings."

Again, try applying logic , any criminal is your enemy .

..."in both cases there are rules, laws and conventions that apply and only those trained in such matters should be given the power of using lethal force on other human beings."

Just plain wrong....if someone is trying to kill me ?....with all the power that is in me....I will do my level best to kill them.

And as for that last one.....you can talk apples all you want but......it is a fact that if guns are indeed outlawed , and all those that apply logic [or lack of] such as you seem to promote....Then only the outlaws will have guns.
 
Camper6 said:
Forgive us our trespasses. I have often seen Chicago quoted as being a bad city while having strict gun laws. But Chicago is not the worst in the U.S.

That at doesn't prove anything. If only it was that simple.
Click to expand...

I never said Chicago was the worst...I said it had one of the highest gun death rates. And some do consider it the deadliest?

BTW...what does "That at doesn't prove anything.?.....Mean exactly.
 
Your post lacks logic.
First, weapons of war should be restricted to the military to be used as intended. It is a nonsense to suggest that withholding such weapons from civilians is the same as taking them away from the army or the police, coast guard etc.

There is a very big difference between an enemy on the battlefield and a criminal but in both cases there are rules, laws and conventions that apply and only those trained in such matters should be given the power of using lethal force on other human beings.

Second, it is not necessary to outlaw gun ownership to provide a safer community for innocent people in their place of work, schools, homes etc. Sensible limits on the categories of firearms that are legal and restrictions on the number and amount of bullets would go a long way but only if a national system of licencing, background checks and registration of all firearms is set up. You can be pretty sure that the military and police force keep detailed records of where all of their weapons are at all times and that when not in use, they are properly secured.

Cliches sound good but rarely hold up against the facts. An apple a day does not keep the doctor away and introducing some sensible firearms regulations does not open the way for mayhem everywhere. That horse, to use another turn of phrase, has already bolted when people are being massacred at work, in church and in the elementary school.
Click to expand...

Amen to all of the above, sister! Well put, Warrigal!
 
Sadly, Australia has just has a mass shooting of our own. A 45 yr old white man armed with a sawn off pump action shot gun entered a hotel in Darwin and went around deliberately shooting people. The reason for this has not been reported yet. Four people are dead and two are in hospital with wounds but are in a stable condition. The gunman has been arrested so I expect we will hear more in the coming days.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...ths-in-darwin-shooting-one-arrested/?cs=14231

https://www.smh.com.au/national/darwin-mass-shooting-what-we-know-so-far-20190604-p51ujo.html

Darwin is the capital city of the Northern Territory which is a large and mostly sparsely populated area that has not yet risen to full statehood. They drink a lot in the NT.
 
rgp said:
I never said Chicago was the worst...I said it had one of the highest gun death rates. And some do consider it the deadliest?

BTW...what does "That at doesn't prove anything.?.....Mean exactly.
Click to expand...

I left the typo in deliberately. What does it mean exactly?

Well refer to the post:
Sorry!...Illinois /Chicago have some of the most restrictive guns law in the nation. And yet they have one of the highest gun-death rates as well. Matter of fact I believe Chicago is known as the deadliest city.I'
Knowing Chicago and the gang related deaths, that proves nothing. One robin doesn't make a whole summer.

What you are trying to prove with your post is that restrictive gun laws don't work. And yet states with the most restrictive gun laws have less gun crime than those with less restrictive gun laws.
 
Camper6 said:
I left the typo in deliberately. What does it mean exactly?

Well refer to the post:
Sorry!...Illinois /Chicago have some of the most restrictive guns law in the nation. And yet they have one of the highest gun-death rates as well. Matter of fact I believe Chicago is known as the deadliest city.I'
Knowing Chicago and the gang related deaths, that proves nothing. One robin doesn't make a whole summer.

What you are trying to prove with your post is that restrictive gun laws don't work. And yet states with the most restrictive gun laws have less gun crime than those with less restrictive gun laws.
Click to expand...


That's all bull....you don't even live here. You keep saying I'm not proving my point....prove yours.

Second thought...don't bother, this is all opinion anyway....and your opinion does not matter.
 
squatting dog said:
Nope. sorry. It wasn't the inanimate hunk of plastic and metal that started the attack... It was an obviously unstable person who started the attack.
Click to expand...

I hear that so often and it really bothers me.

Without the 'inanimate hunk of plastic and metal' there would be no attack. You see the tendency now is to blame it all on the shooter and disregard the gun.

The gun is part of the equation. Sure the person might be unstable, but there are all kinds of unstable people in this world.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a gun to defend yourself or hunting or target practice or whatever.

But there are more guns than people in the U.S. To me it just doesn't seem 'normal'.
 
rgp said:
That's all bull....you don't even live here. You keep saying I'm not proving my point....prove yours.

Second thought...don't bother, this is all opinion anyway....and your opinion does not matter.
Click to expand...

I did prove my point. Statistics prove it. My family lives there. I have a dog in the hunt so to speak. If you don't want a reply, don't bother posting. This is an international forum by the way.
 
Camper6 said:
I did prove my point. Statistics prove it. My family lives there. I have a dog in the hunt so to speak. If you don't want a reply, don't bother posting. This is an international forum by the way.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I didn't want a reply....I said your opinion does not matter....YOU do not live here, and as such YOU do not see/hear our news every day.

Back to what i said....some of the areas,...cities,states....with the most gun restrictive laws , have some of the highest gun death rates.....that is a fact.
 
Back to what i said....some of the areas,...cities,states....with the most gun restrictive laws , have some of the highest gun death rates.....that is a fact.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, can you point to some of the areas, … cities, states... with the least restrictive laws that have some of the lowest gun death rates?
That would seal your point. Make sure the data is about rates, not raw numbers for a valid comparison.

I am in earnest about wanting to be in formed in this matter.
 
Warrigal said:
Out of curiosity, can you point to some of the areas, … cities, states... with the least restrictive laws that have some of the lowest gun death rates?
That would seal your point. Make sure the data is about rates, not raw numbers for a valid comparison.

I am in earnest about wanting to be in formed in this matter.
Click to expand...


Frankly no........those do not make the news, are not discussed, why would they be? The news is crime...not the lack there of. I wish it were the reverse , but it is not.

You don't live here either, and again you do not hear the day-to-day news.
 
I've been following this thread with some interest. It seems that every time there is a mass shooting, the subject of gun control becomes the priority. While it is probably true that we need stronger gun control regulations to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the "unbalanced", there are other statistics that are seldom publicized which show where the Majority of the gun violence occurs. These Mass shootings capture the media attention for days/weeks, but the Real number of gun deaths is seldom reported. Here goes.......

In the U.S., African Americans comprise about 13% of the total population, and gun deaths in that ethnicity are twice as high as gun deaths among Caucasians...which comprise about 64% of the population. Math quickly shows that Blacks are almost 9 times more likely to be killed by guns than Whites. However, the vast majority of those gun deaths are committed by the drug and street gangs, against their fellow "opposition"....and are so common that it hardly seems worthy of any Media attention.

https://www.newsweek.com/gun-deaths-us-twice-high-among-african-americans-caucasians-273071

The problem with "gun control" is that there are already so many guns in the U.S....well over 350 million....most of which are Not registered, that any attempt to reduce that number substantially is probably wishful thinking. Even if something like the Australian effort to reduce the number of guns were initiated, only the most law abiding gun owners would tend to participate in any gun "buy back" program...the thugs and criminals would ignore any such laws, and little reduction in gun deaths would occur.

Gun Control rhetoric peaks every time there is one of these mass shootings, and is largely a "knee jerk" reaction among the public that bears little relation to the root causes of the problem....and fades quickly once the public becomes "saturated" by the media coverage....Until the next one occurs.
 
rgp said:
I didn't say I didn't want a reply....I said your opinion does not matter....YOU do not live here, and as such YOU do not see/hear our news every day.

Back to what i said....some of the areas,...cities,states....with the most gun restrictive laws , have some of the highest gun death rates.....that is a fact.
Click to expand...

Well I live in Canada only a half hour from the U.S. and I have visited frequently. What you may not know is that Canadians get all kinds of news from the U.S. every day. On our television cable we get all the major U.S. networks, CBS, NBC, ABC and in addition PBS . I follow U.S. news closely. My sister in law and her family live in Chicago. My son lives in New England with his family.

Back to what you said. I'm not going to argue the point anymore with you. I just wanted to point out that just because I don't live there that I don't know what is going on. I also belong to a politics forum and I'll keep all my arguing there.

What you say is correct and it depends on the state. It's tough to generalize and come to a definite conclusion.

Whether you think my opinion does not matter or not I'm allowed to present it.
 
rgp said:
Frankly no........those do not make the news, are not discussed, why would they be? The news is crime...not the lack there of. I wish it were the reverse , but it is not.

You don't live here either, and again you do not hear the day-to-day news.
Click to expand...

I don't live on another planet either and you would be very surprised how much US news is available to people in countries all over the world.
We can hear radio programs from NPR, BBC, Radio Netherlands and Deutsche Welle to name a few. They are all broadcast over our own ABC NEWS 24 station and we also have US news on our local TV stations, not to mention on the internet.

If you were curious about Australia you could follow our news too.

All of the above is irrelevant to my question about whether loose gun laws correlate with low death rates in some states or cities. Given that we often hear that people would be safer if there were more guns in civilian hands, I thought that maybe you might be able to find an example to share. I often hear the Chicago has strong gun legislation but high a death rate of gun related homicide. I have seen the argument that one reason for this is the much laxer laws in neighbouring states where obtaining a gun is easy. Bringing them in over the state line is no problem.

I thought you might have been able to counter this argument by showing that there are at least some states or cities where looser laws and low death rates go hand in hand.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top