Once again...nothing to be done but prayers and thoughts
- Thread starter Irvinecommuter
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
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.
We can do all those things...drugs, society, mental health, and guns.
You're behind.
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
And yet mass shooting don't happen elsewhere...I mean is the US the only country with those problems?
I mean 80-90% are just numbers
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/
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.
Liar Loan
Well-known member
Irvinecommuter said:
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.
Irvinecommuter
New member
nosuchreality said:
We can do all those things...drugs, society, mental health, and guns.
Burn That Belly
New member
x
Irvinecommuter
New member
Liar Loan said:
You're behind.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Liar Loan said:
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
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
New member
x
sgip
Well-known member
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
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
Irvinecommuter
New member
Soylent Green Is People said:
And yet mass shooting don't happen elsewhere...I mean is the US the only country with those problems?
Irvinecommuter
New member
fortune11 said:
I mean 80-90% are just numbers
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/
sgip
Well-known member
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
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
Irvinecommuter
New member
Soylent Green Is People said:
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.
Ready2Downsize
Well-known member
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.
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.
Burn That Belly
New member
x