Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

1) Let me know how the NRA was able to "buy off" the judges on the Supreme Court.

The idiotic American ideal of elected judges puts them right into the same category of politicians where they need to maintain the support of special interests to retain their positions. Your entire system is broken from the ground up.

2) "Redefin[ing]" the meaning and interpretation of Amendments has been going on ever since the Amendments were passed and adopted. That's part of the political process and speaks to the "living nature" of the Constitution as a whole.

No kidding. That was my point. Changing the meaning of the second amendment back to its previously viewed argument that unfettered access to guns is not an absolute right does not require any constitutional process or change.

3) Further to point #2, where is your outrage for the "millions" of dollars that have been spent by police unions and surveillance companies to "redefine" the "commonly held interpretation" of the Fourth Amendment?

While that is no less offensive, it is also irrelevant to this topic, which is America's shameful belief that young children and people throwing a Christmas party are acceptable casualties in the fight for unfettered access to guns. Your argument here is an attempt at classic misdirection, and only underscores how weak your position is.

[Burninator]

Mass shootings are part of the American way of life now.

[Cube Inmate]

I think I have a fair compromise: no changes to gun control laws EXCEPT legislating that all guns must be painted bright pink. That would do a lot more to change the gun culture than anything else.

[PsYcNeT]

I think this the 4th time this year they've republished this article

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...larly-ha-51938

[Regulator75]

America, America, this is you...

Sing along everyone!

[CaptainCrunch]

As a BBC report started "Another day in America, another incident of fun related violence"

Its true when you think that there have been 355 incidences of mass shootings in the States this year.

I think that if you polled American's at this point that there has to be a shift in gun control mentality, there has to be at least a percentage of that population that is having sober thoughts about how the system works.


They can't even point at yesterdays butchery and say "Hey man its not the system" because it was the system there were legal guns used, and guns that there's no need to be made available to society.

And at the end of the day, you can point at this as a prime example of why the right to bear arms against an oppressive government is a ridiculous and stupid argument. When these killers went up against a well armed and trained police department they ended up as cold dead lumps of s%%% on a morticians slab.

Its heart breaking to me that this continues to happen over and over again but the political system is so broken and paralyzed that nothing ever changes.

I read about the story of one victim who was wounded who phoned her sister to tell her that she loved her during the shooting and then commented that she felt the bullet going through her back.

There are 14 people that aren't going home to their families, there are another 17 that are going to have their lives mentally or physically changed forever because of this.

While the government didn't aim the gun and pull the trigger, they're accessories to murder here.

One politician who is long since dead and buried and turned to dust once muttered during a negotiation that "He prayed for the day when common sense breaks out", he's still waiting and so are the rest of us.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Do you own a camera?

Oh I'd love to see your logic on this one because its escaping me.

I did this google search of "Violent criminal acts committed by a camera", and except for someone using a selfie stick to put a camera up his butt when he was drunk I couldn't find anywhere where a person was killed or maimed directly by a camera.

So please explain to me where this cast off comment is in any way relevant to firearms related crimes.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

These extreme pro lifers are really quite fascinating. They're willing to kill living people over a fetus but once the fetus is becomes a person, they couldn't care less what happens to them. Remember, these are largely the same people against universal heath care, welfare for poor people, most things Christ preached about, etc.

It's basically the most ####ed up thing ever.

It's not really about life at all. It's a savage reaction against women having the choice of if and when to have children, and to decide whether they want a man in their life or not. Something like 60 per cent of American men believe the male is the head of the family. The number in Canada is below 30 per cent. That's actually one of the widest spreads in dozens of attitudes and beliefs polled in the two countries.

Originally Posted by peter12

It really does seem like a country on the precipice of implosion.

The most obvious benchmark for civil strife in the U.S. in living memory is the 60s. Things were generallly much worse then - you had police unleashing dogs on blacks trying to vote, rednecks killing teachers who tried to help blacks vote, and mass race riots in every major city - basically what's been happening in St. Louis x20. You had presidents and presidential candidates being assassinated. You had student protesters being shot and killed by the national guard. You had the black panthers arming themselves for revolution. You had left wing radicals blowing the heads off judges and inciting prison riots. And all against the backdrop of a war that was an order of magnitude larger than the recent Iraq or Afghani wars in casualties, a war hundreds of thousands of average American men were being drafted to fight in against their conscience. The U.S. managed to mend itself (more or less) after those wounds.

What we're seeing now seems more like a breaking apart into chaos than a struggle for the soul of America. With power relentlessly and it seems irrevocably pulled out of the grasp of social conservatives, and with the ongoing economic decline of that class's heartland, it's hard to see a soft landing.

As for this shooting, this sounds callous but at this point I regard these sorts of stories out of the U.S. the way I regard a story about 50 people dying in a ferry sinking in Indonesia; something awful but seemingly quite common in a country with very different notions of safety and the value of human life than my own.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Not withstanding my arguement that the U.S. is welcome to do what they want the actual how to change things is easy, first you start with an outright ban of the sale and production of whichever class of weapons you want to see gone, I'd ban all handguns and all semi autos myself, if you want a gun learn to shoot a bolt action 3 odd 3 like your grandad did. couple this with regular amnesties for gun owners to hand their guns in and the slow steady, confiscation and general wear and tear on the guns in the population, it would take a few decades but slowly but surely you'd remove them from the population. It's pretty much what they did in the UK.



The only driver for gun production is the legal U.S. market without it there's no money in guns for the manufacturers, Berreta or colt arnt going to produce guns for the illegal market, it's to small, essentially most gun producers would close.



The vast majority of Americans, like Brits and Aussie's don't actually care about the guns themselves they care about the symbolic arguement, given time most will hand them over.



The main thing is it would take decades but the process is simple, I'd agree right now there's no appetite for it now but gun ownership in the U.S. is actually dropping massively, it's turning into a small number of people with a vast number of guns. There may come a time when the U.S. gets sick of the bull####.

What Gun ownership dropping. They sold more guns on Black Friday than ever. Ever since Obama has been in office people have been buying them at record numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Addressing the “assault rifle” fallacy first. An assault rifle is not a semi-automatic rifle, which is what has been used by many criminals and subsequently lumped into that category. By definition, an assault rifle is a select fire weapon that fires an intermediate cartridge (Miriam-Webster and US DIA). In order to get an assault rifle in the US, extensive background checks, authorization from local LE, fingerprinting and fees are required. This doesn’t include the generally prohibitive cost and low supply, which can be traced to the 1986 NFA law which heavily regulates FA firearms in the US. In Canada, FA firearms are already classed as prohibited, with no new licenses being issued for possession only, use is already prohibited even for license holders.

Now for the “powerful cartridge” argument. The more common rifles fire a less powerful cartridge than many hunting rifles. AR or similar platform rifles generally fire a 5.56/.223 round, while many “hunting rifles” are chambered for cartridges such as .270, .300, .308. For example, a user of a Daniel Defense M4 (one of the better ARs available) will usually use a 55-62gr 5.56/.223 round; the hunter who is looking to bag an elk might select a 180gr .300 WSM round. There are AR platforms that will use .300 Blackout and .308, but are not as common. So we now have a whole slew of firearms that are more “socially acceptable” due to looks, but use a cartridge with a heavier bullet, higher powder load and deliver more force both at the muzzle and on target (many of which are also semi-auto). That being said, AR style rifles are used to hunt and are quite popular in the US for such uses mainly due to their affordability, light weight and reliability. If Canada did not have the inconsistent classification system that is in place (AR-15 and similar are restricted due to name only), many would be using them to hunt as well.

Handguns are frequently used in competition and for hunting as well. In addition, defending one’s life or the life of another using a firearm is an accepted and legal use in both the US and Canada. While the US has less restrictive carry laws for non-police users, it is possible to carry a handgun explicitly for self-protection in Canada. Again, the rounds fired are smaller, less powerful and have less energy than “hunting” rifle cartridges.



Ease of access to mental health care, fewer societal issues and less crime overall. A part of that can be attributed to the licensing system in Canada as well.

I do agree with you on some of what your saying about the assault rifle definition, your right that a modern military assault weapon whether its a full rifle, or smaller weapon like the Swat Carried MP series all have selector switches that allow you to select rates of fire from Semi, to 3 round to fully automatic for example.

However and I don't think that you can argue to much, that the AR-15 shares a lot of the same features as an assault rifle. The semi auto feature and firing mechanism allows you to put a lot of rounds down range quickly, the magazine fed capability means that you don't have to reload as often like a standard hunting rifle that might be designed with a 3 or 5 round clip and a bolt action firing mechanism.

The type of bullet is irrelevant to the definition of an assault rifle. The AK-47 uses a heavy 7.62 round, the AR-15 I believe uses a high velocity 5.56 round the difference in design philosophy really goes towards carry weight and accuracy more then anything else.

I say up half the night because I just can't in my mind figure out a civilian use for a magazine fed, precise semi automatic light weight rifle whether we define it as an assault rifle or not.

Target practice? There's little challenge to that as this generations rifles are extremely accurate, you can shoot a lot of rounds quickly. So its not sportsmen like.

Hunting? Do you really need to have a 30 round clip to go duck or deer hunting? It removes the sport from it.

Aha defending our homes against evil burglers? That's where the hand gun argument comes into play. the bottom line is this, I firmly believe that more harm comes from this mentally then good, trust me I know this.

First of all, its more then likely that any intruder is going to get a jump on you. Second of all, in a darkened environment when your scared and your adrenaline is pumping, things like target identification goes right out the window, your more then likely to hurt your self or a loved one then hurt a burgler.

Guns embolden you, they wipe out any sense of self preservation and right thinking in a panic filled chaotic situation. Your more then likely to go towards a unknown and deadly situation then retreat from it because by gawd you have a gun.

Ok, how about defending yourself against a oppressive situation, I mean I have my AR-15 I have 30 in the mag, lock and load, come get me Obama (don't worry I still think he's a terrible president).

But what is your AR-15 going to do against a armored cav brigade with air and artillary support. Heck whats someone's dumb a$$ going to do against a marine recon operater except look stupid and die.

We saw yesterday that the police had the tactics, training and equipment and they killed those things dead when they caught up to him.

If Americans want guns, in my mind, bolt action, low capacity is all they should get their hands on. And non self cocking revolvers.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I do agree with you on some of what your saying about the assault rifle definition, your right that a modern military assault weapon whether its a full rifle, or smaller weapon like the Swat Carried MP series all have selector switches that allow you to select rates of fire from Semi, to 3 round to fully automatic for example.

However and I don't think that you can argue to much, that the AR-15 shares a lot of the same features as an assault rifle. The semi auto feature and firing mechanism allows you to put a lot of rounds down range quickly, the magazine fed capability means that you don't have to reload as often like a standard hunting rifle that might be designed with a 3 or 5 round clip and a bolt action firing mechanism.

The type of bullet is irrelevant to the definition of an assault rifle. The AK-47 uses a heavy 7.62 round, the AR-15 I believe uses a high velocity 5.56 round the difference in design philosophy really goes towards carry weight and accuracy more then anything else.

I say up half the night because I just can't in my mind figure out a civilian use for a magazine fed, precise semi automatic light weight rifle whether we define it as an assault rifle or not.

Target practice? There's little challenge to that as this generations rifles are extremely accurate, you can shoot a lot of rounds quickly. So its not sportsmen like.

Hunting? Do you really need to have a 30 round clip to go duck or deer hunting? It removes the sport from it.

Aha defending our homes against evil burglers? That's where the hand gun argument comes into play. the bottom line is this, I firmly believe that more harm comes from this mentally then good, trust me I know this.

First of all, its more then likely that any intruder is going to get a jump on you. Second of all, in a darkened environment when your scared and your adrenaline is pumping, things like target identification goes right out the window, your more then likely to hurt your self or a loved one then hurt a burgler.

Guns embolden you, they wipe out any sense of self preservation and right thinking in a panic filled chaotic situation. Your more then likely to go towards a unknown and deadly situation then retreat from it because by gawd you have a gun.

Ok, how about defending yourself against a oppressive situation, I mean I have my AR-15 I have 30 in the mag, lock and load, come get me Obama (don't worry I still think he's a terrible president).

But what is your AR-15 going to do against a armored cav brigade with air and artillary support. Heck whats someone's dumb a$$ going to do against a marine recon operater except look stupid and die.

We saw yesterday that the police had the tactics, training and equipment and they killed those things dead when they caught up to him.

If Americans want guns, in my mind, bolt action, low capacity is all they should get their hands on. And non self cocking revolvers.

If your goal is to kill someone or a group of people there are many ways to do that. Focusing on the type of guns used seems dumb. Shot guns are allowed in Canada and if these two people entered this building with shot guns I think they would have achieved the same result. How about knives? bombs? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And as the evidence keeps coming in it looks like this is a planned attack orchestrated by the same religious beliefs similar to Paris - A place where guns are illegal.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Nobama

If your goal is to kill someone or a group of people there are many ways to do that. Focusing on the type of guns used seems dumb. Shot guns are allowed in Canada and if these two people entered this building with shot guns I think they would have achieved the same result. How about knives? bombs? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And as the evidence keeps coming in it looks like this is a planned attack orchestrated by the same religious beliefs similar to Paris - A place where guns are illegal.

[codynw]

lol @ username "nobama"

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Nobama

If your goal is to kill someone or a group of people there are many ways to do that. Focusing on the type of guns used seems dumb. Shot guns are allowed in Canada and if these two people entered this building with shot guns I think they would have achieved the same result.

Hang on - you really think they could have killed 14 people and injured 16 others in that short space of time with shotguns? Seriously?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hang on - you really think they could have killed 14 people and injured 16 others in that short space of time with shotguns? Seriously?

You could kill 100 people in a few seconds with a spoon, man.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm fairly certain nobama used to be a redneck but I could be wrong.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by codynw

lol @ username "nobama"

I wonder if that user was Calgary Born.. and raised.

[Nobama]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I wonder if that user was Calgary Born.. and raised.

Yes.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Hang on - you really think they could have killed 14 people and injured 16 others in that short space of time with shotguns? Seriously?

Absolutely. What is so absurd about that?

A group of guys with knives and hammers killed 30 people and injured something like 150 in China not long ago in a relatively short period of time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Nobama

If your goal is to kill someone or a group of people there are many ways to do that. Focusing on the type of guns used seems dumb. Shot guns are allowed in Canada and if these two people entered this building with shot guns I think they would have achieved the same result. How about knives? bombs? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And as the evidence keeps coming in it looks like this is a planned attack orchestrated by the same religious beliefs similar to Paris - A place where guns are illegal.

This is a BS line of logic and you know it.

FIrst of all with the shotgun argument. You're right, a shotgun is the ultimate room clearing weapon. But you don't see a lot of shot gun based massed shootings because they're not an effective weapon. They aren't magazine fed and they're not a super accurate weapon, and they don't have a significant range compared to the weapons that are most commonly used, where you can accurately hit something down range up to more then a football field in distance. Most shotguns that are purchased are also manual reload, the magazine fed shot guns are also a banned weapon. As are some of the more exotic rounds that you can fire through them.

Ok the last time I looked explosives are a banned weapon, so maybe that explains why there is a lower then 355 incident per year mass murder caused by explosives. Now as yourself and be honest, can you imagine if grenades were legal and these mass murders could walk onto a attack with a 30 round semi automatic weapon and 5 or 6 lightweight fragmentation grenades. The casualty rates would be a lot higher then they are.

As for the knives thing, come on man, most knives aren't designed as a primary killing weapon unless we're talking about swords. And as a killing weapon even the dumbest mass murderer knows that a fully tricked out magazine fed semi auto weapon is the weapon of choice, so why bother with a knife.

When I was in the military, we had knives and bayonets and they were cool to use, but unlike a Tom Clancy novel or movie of the week they were so far down the list of weapons that we would actually ever have to use, that rocks and a healthy spray of our urine would probably be used first.

And your right, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns like the ones being used make it easier for them to make that decision to do it and carry it out.

would you give gas to a pyromaniac?

Gas doesn't kill people, its not its primary design.

But a gun does kill people and that's its primary design.