If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"   (salon.com) divider line 522
    More: Obvious, making excuses, New York City Police Department  
•       •       •

10858 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:27 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 10:53:20 PM

DoctorCal: I'm only asking because there have been at least a couple of threads this summer where people of a certain mindset have tried to minimize incidents where "only" four people died.


Understood, and for the record I wasn't trying to lecture you - that critique was directed towards the thread in general and not you specifically.
 
2013-09-17 10:54:48 PM

violentsalvation: DoctorCal: NickelP: Props for everyone for having an interesting discussion. This will be done soon when the green hits

Faster than that. The NRA's anti-background check water-carriers have arrived.

This NRA?


No, not the NRA from Feb. 2009.

This NRA.
 
2013-09-17 10:55:41 PM

feckingmorons: NickelP: I hope you are joking about the last part I can't read it right now. Which shooters in mass murders over the last 5 years who legally purchased their own guns would have been stopped by that bill?

The pot part, yeah if you smoke pot you can't buy a gun. I wasn't calling you a pothead, I submitted before I got the s on potheads.

That bill none, but if the states submitted the data needed it could have stopped the VT guy, heck it could have stopped the guy at the Navy Yard if the VA had found he was dangerous and submitted it. (I have no idea if the VA made that determination). I could have stopped Loughner whose college said he was too dangerous to go to school there and sent him to a psychiatrist before he could return (he never went to the psychiatrist and never went back to school) Doesn't the school have a duty to tell the Court of their concerns about him being too dangerous to be in school? Shouldn't he had a court ordered evaluation (heck he might have been treated and not shot anyone).

People lie on the 4473 quite frequently I'm sure, and the NICS probably catches a lot of them (none that lie have been prosecuted amazingly), but we can up that catch rate if we include the appropriate mental health disqualifications.


Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand
 
2013-09-17 10:56:29 PM

dr_blasto: There has to be a way to get off any list that doesn't require thousands of dollars.


Yeah, that would be nice. Now there is no way at all (unless it was the VA or another federal agency that had you involuntarily hospitalized or diagnosed as a danger to self and others) , so that Bill would be a good step.

I don't know what it would cost. Wouldn't that be the last thing done before they tell you 'don't let the door hit ya on the way out' when you leave the hospital? Sign some sort of form that says you can take care of your own affairs now.

I know people who have been in guardianships but 'got better' and had them rescinded, but that probably cost thousands as lawyers were involved.
 
2013-09-17 10:57:53 PM

Elegy: DoctorCal: I'm only asking because there have been at least a couple of threads this summer where people of a certain mindset have tried to minimize incidents where "only" four people died.

Understood, and for the record I wasn't trying to lecture you - that critique was directed towards the thread in general and not you specifically.


I getcha. Didn't think you were lecturing, and it does seem pretty clear that someone drew just the right qualifications for their statement to eliminate a bunch of incidents from fitting the wording.
 
2013-09-17 11:01:01 PM

NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.


What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?
 
2013-09-17 11:01:56 PM

NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand


The pot thing has been around forever, it is just recently that is has come into conflict with state law. That is one thing that could possibly be fixed with an executive order as the law requires one to be 'an unlawful user of, addicted to marijuana...etc. It is possible that an EO could treat unlawful user of marijuana as someone only resident in someplace where it is illegal by state law.

There is no lab test so I bet most people just say no, really who would say yes?
 
2013-09-17 11:04:54 PM

DoctorCal: NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.

What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?


I don't think so. Not anymore than someone who likes to.drink. I wonder if step two to that bill is banning anyone who has had a dui public intox underage consumption, open container etc.

as mentioned previously this is the problem with gun control. Every time reasonable gun owners start getting on board a bunch of bullshiat gets added to restrict them unreasonably.
 
2013-09-17 11:07:30 PM

feckingmorons: NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand

The pot thing has been around forever, it is just recently that is has come into conflict with state law. That is one thing that could possibly be fixed with an executive order as the law requires one to be 'an unlawful user of, addicted to marijuana...etc. It is possible that an EO could treat unlawful user of marijuana as someone only resident in someplace where it is illegal by state law.

There is no lab test so I bet most people just say no, really who would say yes?


What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?
 
2013-09-17 11:08:22 PM

DoctorCal: NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.

What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?


Weed is a disqualifier because its illegal. I don't believe it has anything to do with mental health. Brink a drunk is also a disqualifier.
 
2013-09-17 11:09:48 PM

NickelP: feckingmorons: NickelP: Interesting I will read up more on that. fyi iI'm not a pot head, been years since I touched that stuff. I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns. Way to kill a bill over something that has shiat to do with the subject at hand

The pot thing has been around forever, it is just recently that is has come into conflict with state law. That is one thing that could possibly be fixed with an executive order as the law requires one to be 'an unlawful user of, addicted to marijuana...etc. It is possible that an EO could treat unlawful user of marijuana as someone only resident in someplace where it is illegal by state law.

There is no lab test so I bet most people just say no, really who would say yes?

What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?


If they catch you with two joints, then distribution and the firearm can make it worse. Using a gun in the commission of a crime and all that.
 
2013-09-17 11:11:35 PM

dr_blasto: DoctorCal: NickelP: I do think its a bit of bullshiat and political vengeance to say someone that maybe has cancer and wants a joint so they can keep food down during chemo is mentally unstable and can't own guns.

What about somebody who is young, healthy, and completely without pain, but likes to blaze up because it makes the music feel like space cartoons. Does the weed make them unsafe to have a firearm?

Weed is a disqualifier because its illegal. I don't believe it has anything to do with mental health. Brink a drunk is also a disqualifier.


I'm sober as a judge tonight, I swear!
 
2013-09-17 11:12:00 PM

mikeray: I bet that they are 12 families in D.C. that would have loved to have some armed civilians onsite yesterday.


You mean with the same weapons that killed their loved ones? I doubt it.
 
2013-09-17 11:16:01 PM

feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).


I see no waiting period.
 
2013-09-17 11:16:52 PM
Do armed bystanders stop mass shootings? The answer is:

Yes, but rarely.

In fact, of most of the mass shootings that are stopped by an armed bystander (which is less than 1%), the armed bystander tends to be an off duty cop, a marine, or a member of some other law enforcement profession where they've had requisite training in deadly situations. For average citizens, however, whenever they intervene with their CCW, they usually end up seriously injured or dead.

Summed up: The aggregate result of armed civilian intervention in a mass shooting is inconclusive. There is too small a sampleset and too many variables involved (location/nature of the shooting, weapons used, experience and training of the citizen, terrain, positioning, etc....) in each case for us to even make that conclusion. And there is a law of unintended consequences to consider (see: Zimmerman, George). We have to ask ourselves whether its worth it to have the innocent bystander murdered every so often on suspicions that he was a potential mass shooter.

So while self-sacrifice is a noble virtue, there are a myriad of factors to consider when involved in a shootout with someone who is unhinged and with whom you are almost certainly outgunned. You cannot expect teachers or civilians or anyone to have the capacity to make the right choices given their options, and it's too much to ask them to receive compulsory gun/army/marine/survival/bootcamp training for a low percentage chance at a beneficial pay off.
 
2013-09-17 11:18:44 PM

NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

I see no waiting period.


Does that negate feckingmorons's statement?
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:21:22 PM
DRTFA, DRTcomments.

A shooting at Smith County Courthouse in Texas was halted by a man with a sidearm.  The shooter had shot several people in the courthouse, several more outside.  A man with a concealed-carry license drew on him, and struck the shooter, mortally wounding him.  The shooter fatally shot the man firing at him, and fled in a pickup.  He wrecked the truck a distance later, dead.

This event may not be considered a mass shooting by some measures, but it was agreed by the witnesses that lives were saved by the man who shot the suspect, by drawing his attention (and fire) away.

I wouldn't expect Salon to consider my hometown of 100k in East Texas in their article. It's likely that the man with the concealed-carry would have been armed even had he been without the license, but really, I don't know.  He did, however make a heroic move against a man who was about to hurt other people.  Without a pistol, he may have rushed the guy, he was said to have been that sort of character.

The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level.  I don't know what to do about that.  However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.
 
2013-09-17 11:24:01 PM

NickelP: What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?


I would think you could, but one must assume it would all depend on how much of a dick you are. If you're arrested for the pot they would probably just make you put your gun away as it really isn't an element of the offense.

If you just punched a guy in the eye (misdemeanor battery) and you had a gun and a splif (and the guy didn't deserve it) I could see them adding a felony.
 
2013-09-17 11:26:52 PM

DoctorCal: What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again?


I would say it's any open gunfire in a public place with no particular targets in mind. The shooter doesn't necessarily have to kill or hit anyone, he just has to open fire in a public place hoping to hit lots of people.
 
2013-09-17 11:27:39 PM

NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

I see no waiting period.


Maybe I'm missing something? Waiting period for what?

This bill only clears up confusion in the old law (the one after VT) and give those with mental illness disqualification who got better an out (as it should). There is nothing about waiting periods. I don't think there are any federal laws about waiting periods. Those are all state and local to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not keen on waiting periods. If you're nutty enough this week to shoot up a mall, won't you be just as nutty (or angry) next week. I don't think it really gives people time to cool down. Crimes of passion usually don't include a trip to Cabellas.

Conversely, if a woman has a SO that just beat the crap out of her who is arranging bail she might want to run down to the gun store and come home with a twelve gauge today.
 
2013-09-17 11:29:33 PM

feckingmorons: NickelP: What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?

I would think you could, but one must assume it would all depend on how much of a dick you are. If you're arrested for the pot they would probably just make you put your gun away as it really isn't an element of the offense.

If you just punched a guy in the eye (misdemeanor battery) and you had a gun and a splif (and the guy didn't deserve it) I could see them adding a felony.


As adding gun registries that are publicly searchable becomes a big thing, do you think it is reasonable to think at some point someone may say 'shiat lets cross check that with the marijuana records and add some felonies to our quotas this month!?'

I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of passing a law based on believing it won't or shouldn't be enforced.

Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?  I'd have to google but I think that is something like 20% of those over 18 over the last 18 months.  I can see an issue with any gun legislation that says 1/5 the population can no longer own a gun.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:30:37 PM

Ishkur: Do armed bystanders stop mass shootings? The answer is:

Yes, but rarely.


I'm glad you linked to that article.  I don't think it is a matter of arms that determines safety, but in severe situations, weapons offer assistance.  At the risk of sounding trite or cliche, when there is need, I hope someone will meet it.

Whether it's a Boy Scout helping an elderly person across the street, a parent halting the hand of someone abusing their child at the supermarket, to someone tackling or confronting a crook trying to hold up a business - I want someone there that will meet the situation's need.

I don't know if a gun is needed for all those things, and I'd hate to see the gun turned around on the potential hero, but when you need someone heroic, I hope GI JOE is there.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-09-17 11:35:22 PM
Great, this shiat again.

Anyone have their deeply-held opinion changed recently?

Thought not...
 
2013-09-17 11:39:06 PM

feckingmorons: NewportBarGuy: feckingmorons: Sorry about the formatting. This is a vast improvement. It is still in committee, it can be revised (it won't be because it will die, but it could be).

I see no waiting period.

Maybe I'm missing something? Waiting period for what?

This bill only clears up confusion in the old law (the one after VT) and give those with mental illness disqualification who got better an out (as it should). There is nothing about waiting periods. I don't think there are any federal laws about waiting periods. Those are all state and local to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not keen on waiting periods. If you're nutty enough this week to shoot up a mall, won't you be just as nutty (or angry) next week. I don't think it really gives people time to cool down. Crimes of passion usually don't include a trip to Cabellas.

Conversely, if a woman has a SO that just beat the crap out of her who is arranging bail she might want to run down to the gun store and come home with a twelve gauge today.


The math changes over time. Sure, a nutter is going to be a nutter next week, but suicidal people have a much narrower window during which they're likely to do the deed. Also, the same holds true for the crimes of passion shooters.

I don't really know if a week would make a difference, though I do think it is worth studying. I would expect you could provide for a collector-type license so as not to inconvenience that group, a group who are noticeably less likely to be an offender in any violent crimes involving guns.

I don't know, though, aren't most places only putting waiting requirements on handguns?
 
2013-09-17 11:45:13 PM

NickelP: feckingmorons: NickelP: What happens if you get arrested, have a ccw on you that is permitted, and a joint? Did you just tack on a felony Or a few?

I would think you could, but one must assume it would all depend on how much of a dick you are. If you're arrested for the pot they would probably just make you put your gun away as it really isn't an element of the offense.

If you just punched a guy in the eye (misdemeanor battery) and you had a gun and a splif (and the guy didn't deserve it) I could see them adding a felony.

As adding gun registries that are publicly searchable becomes a big thing, do you think it is reasonable to think at some point someone may say 'shiat lets cross check that with the marijuana records and add some felonies to our quotas this month!?'

I don't understand why anyone would be in favor of passing a law based on believing it won't or shouldn't be enforced.

Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?  I'd have to google but I think that is something like 20% of those over 18 over the last 18 months.  I can see an issue with any gun legislation that says 1/5 the population can no longer own a gun.


Weed isn't even the problem. Stoners don't shoot people, drunks do.
 
2013-09-17 11:45:44 PM

NickelP: Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?


Nope. In fact I favor decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce or so. If can be a civil infraction like running a red light if it must be penalized.

I'm opposed to gun registries, publicly searchable or not. In Florida it is a crime for any police department or governmental unit to keep a record of firearm ownership. If you shoot an murderer in your kitchen and the police take your gun they must return it to you after the investigation AND remove anything from the records that would reveal the specific gun (serial number).

I don't think the government is organized to cross check anything. Hell they can't keep crazy people from shooting up their military bases. That DB that TSA uses if you forget your license (not if you are a dick about showing it - you really have to have forgotten or lost it) so they can ask you questions only you would know the answer to, like who holds your mortgage or what street did you live on in 1982 is from Lexis Nexis, don't think the government is nearly that organized.
 
2013-09-17 11:48:20 PM

Ishkur: DoctorCal: What, *exactly*, qualifies as a "mass shooting", again?

I would say it's any open gunfire in a public place with no particular targets in mind. The shooter doesn't necessarily have to kill or hit anyone, he just has to open fire in a public place hoping to hit lots of people.


That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.

They define it as any shooting that took the lives of 4 or more people. They also included some spree shootings and not others, but weren't clear on what criteria they used to include or exclude spree shootings.

As I said above, its like building a dataset of only buildings that burned down, and using that dataset to come to the conclusion that fire departments are a useless waste of taxpayer money.
 
2013-09-17 11:48:27 PM

dr_blasto: I don't know, though, aren't most places only putting waiting requirements on handguns?


I think so. That wouldn't have helped in this instance as the murderer used a shotgun. I think he got the handguns from people he murdered.

There was no AK-47 or AR-15, reporters think everything is one of those. An M1A1 Abrams Battle Tank is an AR-15 to those clowns.
 
2013-09-17 11:49:20 PM

Elegy: That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.


Does anyone really care about Mother Jones? Those people are so far out in left field.
 
2013-09-17 11:52:21 PM

feckingmorons: Elegy: That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.

Does anyone really care about Mother Jones? Those people are so far out in left field.


Well, I assumed it was relevant since its what TFA and this thread are based on, but I could be wrong.
 
2013-09-17 11:52:41 PM

feckingmorons: NickelP: Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?

Nope. In fact I favor decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce or so. If can be a civil infraction like running a red light if it must be penalized.

I'm opposed to gun registries, publicly searchable or not. In Florida it is a crime for any police department or governmental unit to keep a record of firearm ownership. If you shoot an murderer in your kitchen and the police take your gun they must return it to you after the investigation AND remove anything from the records that would reveal the specific gun (serial number).

I don't think the government is organized to cross check anything. Hell they can't keep crazy people from shooting up their military bases. That DB that TSA uses if you forget your license (not if you are a dick about showing it - you really have to have forgotten or lost it) so they can ask you questions only you would know the answer to, like who holds your mortgage or what street did you live on in 1982 is from Lexis Nexis, don't think the government is nearly that organized.


Then stop supporting legislation that is against your values.

I am against gun registries too.  We don't all live in florida though.  There are several places it is publicly available.  Hell newspapers have had over lays on google maps to show who has them.  Don't hide behind the 'well the gov is so unorganized they could never say omg someone is in the medical mj db and has a cwp'.  That is a 20 second search for the it folks.

Either way, if you or I am write on how hard that is for the gov to cross check, it is absolutely nonsense to pass laws based on the belief that they won't be able to enforce them.  Can you provide any justification to that?
 
2013-09-17 11:59:39 PM

feckingmorons: dr_blasto: I don't know, though, aren't most places only putting waiting requirements on handguns?

I think so. That wouldn't have helped in this instance as the murderer used a shotgun. I think he got the handguns from people he murdered.

There was no AK-47 or AR-15, reporters think everything is one of those. An M1A1 Abrams Battle Tank is an AR-15 to those clowns.


It was more to the point of the battered wife picking up a 12 gauge from Dick's.

I don't think that, even though there were documented issues, the latest guy would have been blocked from purchasing any weapon--mostly due to the fact that nobody seems to have really cared he shot a car over some nonsense and was allowed to continue to keep whatever gun he used. Or, at least, wasn't put on the "holy fark don't sell this whacko a gun" list.
 
2013-09-18 12:00:13 AM

Elegy: feckingmorons: Elegy: That's not how the dataset that Mother Jones built defines it.

Does anyone really care about Mother Jones? Those people are so far out in left field.

Well, I assumed it was relevant since its what TFA and this thread are based on, but I could be wrong.


Cigar Afficianado has a bigger circulation by about 3 people. (And they are just as annoying).
 
2013-09-18 12:02:25 AM

NickelP: Then stop supporting legislation that is against your values.


I don't support laws that go against my values.

I won't live in a state that requires you to register your gun. I'd love to move back to Western New York, but their gun laws and state income tax are just too much for me. I love that part of the country, but I can't stomach that sort of nonsense.
 
2013-09-18 12:04:05 AM

dr_blasto: I don't think that, even though there were documented issues, the latest guy would have been blocked from purchasing any weapon--mostly due to the fact that nobody seems to have really cared he shot a car over some nonsense and was allowed to continue to keep whatever gun he used. Or, at least, wasn't put on the "holy fark don't sell this whacko a gun" list.


Yeah, why no felony conviction for that. In Florida I'd be convicted and have to do a minimum of 5 years. Florida has no early release.

If you black out because you're angry and shoot up some construction worker's car you need to go to prison or to the hospital, but either one should leave a mark on your record such that you can't play with guns anymore.
 
2013-09-18 12:06:31 AM

NickelP: feckingmorons: NickelP: Do you favor restricting gun rights to anyone who use weed?

Nope. In fact I favor decriminalization of marijuana under one ounce or so. If can be a civil infraction like running a red light if it must be penalized.

I'm opposed to gun registries, publicly searchable or not. In Florida it is a crime for any police department or governmental unit to keep a record of firearm ownership. If you shoot an murderer in your kitchen and the police take your gun they must return it to you after the investigation AND remove anything from the records that would reveal the specific gun (serial number).

I don't think the government is organized to cross check anything. Hell they can't keep crazy people from shooting up their military bases. That DB that TSA uses if you forget your license (not if you are a dick about showing it - you really have to have forgotten or lost it) so they can ask you questions only you would know the answer to, like who holds your mortgage or what street did you live on in 1982 is from Lexis Nexis, don't think the government is nearly that organized.

Then stop supporting legislation that is against your values.

I am against gun registries too.  We don't all live in florida though.  There are several places it is publicly available.  Hell newspapers have had over lays on google maps to show who has them.  Don't hide behind the 'well the gov is so unorganized they could never say omg someone is in the medical mj db and has a cwp'.  That is a 20 second search for the it folks.

Either way, if you or I am write on how hard that is for the gov to cross check, it is absolutely nonsense to pass laws based on the belief that they won't be able to enforce them.  Can you provide any justification to that?


Way too many laws are passed with the public understanding that they can't or won't be enforced. That's bullshiat.

The whole "oh those pot people will only get in trouble if they act up" nonsense is crap. The fact is, so many f these laws allow for significant harassment of just about anyone-not to mention what they mean to the guy who gets caught smoking that one joint he partaken of every summer whe out camping with his friends.
 
2013-09-18 12:11:32 AM

Elegy: They define it as any shooting that took the lives of 4 or more people.


I wouldn't agree with that. A guy could gun down his whole family before turning the gun on himself and they wouldn't call it a shooting but a mass murder.

I do like the qualifiers that it has to be in a public place and the targets have to be random and/or have no relationship with the shooter, but I don't place any value on a minimum number of casualties. A guy could unleash an entire M16 clip into a crowded mall food court and hit no one, it would still be called a mass shooting, just one where the shooter sucked at shooting.

Because the emphasis is on the word "shooting". Not deaths, but shooting. Meaning there's got to be a lot of bullets fired. Where they go is irrelevant.
 
2013-09-18 12:11:48 AM
Must we have this silly thread every other day?
 
2013-09-18 12:13:44 AM

wee: Great, this shiat again.

Anyone have their deeply-held opinion changed recently?

Thought not...


Done in...whatever # this post was.
 
2013-09-18 12:14:11 AM

NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass


Your flawless logic has convinced me. Every person should be required to not only own a firearm, but hold it in their hand at all times. Firearm deaths will drop to zero. It might just take a couple weeks.
 
2013-09-18 12:27:56 AM

feckingmorons: dr_blasto: I don't think that, even though there were documented issues, the latest guy would have been blocked from purchasing any weapon--mostly due to the fact that nobody seems to have really cared he shot a car over some nonsense and was allowed to continue to keep whatever gun he used. Or, at least, wasn't put on the "holy fark don't sell this whacko a gun" list.

Yeah, why no felony conviction for that. In Florida I'd be convicted and have to do a minimum of 5 years. Florida has no early release.

If you black out because you're angry and shoot up some construction worker's car you need to go to prison or to the hospital, but either one should leave a mark on your record such that you can't play with guns anymore.


Point of order: it would have been 20 years in Florida, mandatory, with no early release, if he was found guilty of a crime when shot the construction worker's vehicle. It's 10-20-life: 10 for committing a crime with a gun, 20 for firing a gun during the commission of the crime, and 25 to life if you shoot someone. See also: Marissa Alexander.

Not sure that would have helped in this case, however, IIRC the breakdown was between the DA and the police, the DA never got the paperwork and so no charges were filed.

Wait - or was that the OTHER gun incident he got away with?
 
2013-09-18 12:34:32 AM

433: The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level. I don't know what to do about that. However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.


That's great, but I would rather deal with the problem before the bullets start flying.
 
2013-09-18 12:35:45 AM

John Buck 41: Must we have this silly thread every other day?


Mass murders must be so inconvenient for you!
 
2013-09-18 12:39:35 AM

Ishkur: Elegy: They define it as any shooting that took the lives of 4 or more people.

I wouldn't agree with that. A guy could gun down his whole family before turning the gun on himself and they wouldn't call it a shooting but a mass murder.

I do like the qualifiers that it has to be in a public place and the targets have to be random and/or have no relationship with the shooter, but I don't place any value on a minimum number of casualties. A guy could unleash an entire M16 clip into a crowded mall food court and hit no one, it would still be called a mass shooting, just one where the shooter sucked at shooting.

Because the emphasis is on the word "shooting". Not deaths, but shooting. Meaning there's got to be a lot of bullets fired. Where they go is irrelevant.


I actually agree with you - the criteria of at least 4 deaths and some (but not other) spree shootings slants this data exactly the way MoJo wants to slant it - that no bystander has ever stopped a mass shooting.

Which is simply not true. Posted this upthread, but it bears repeating: the Weekly Standard has a good refutation of the Mother Jones dataset where they detail incidents where a gunman firing in a public space was brought down before he could kill 4 or more people.

e.g. Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two

Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.


And they go on to list several more.

I have built a database of traffic "severe" traffic accidents, but I've excluded all traffic accidents that occurred at a speed of less than 150 miles an hour from my database because they don't meet my definition of "severe."

Guess what? My database shows that seatbelt a don't work - in 100% of severe accidents over a period of 30 years, the driver died even if he or she was wearing a seatbelt.

Let's get rid of all seatbelts - they obviously do nothing to prevent traffic deaths.
 
2013-09-18 12:51:29 AM
F*ck it. Who brought popcorn?
 
2013-09-18 12:56:28 AM
Prove that negative will ya?
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 12:57:16 AM

Mentat: 433: The thrust of all this is the following: Men like him are the sort of person you want to have a concealed carry license.Determining that kind of character can't be done qualitatively by the government at the public level. I don't know what to do about that. However, when it is time for a man or woman to step up, I want that person to be there, in whatever manner they deem fit.

That's great, but I would rather deal with the problem before the bullets start flying.


I think that would be ideal.  Stopping a determined individual from causing violence is extremely difficult, no matter how you look at it. If it is not one thing, it's another - it's always something.
 
2013-09-18 01:01:42 AM
According to a

It's sarcasm folks, Mother Jones is like The Onion with less accurate facts and hardly any humor.
 
2013-09-18 01:14:52 AM
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-18 01:17:30 AM

2wolves: Folks, U.S. citizens love their guns and love violence.  Until the culture changes you're pissing into the wind.


The Heller and McDonald cases in the Supreme Court were both decided 5-4 along ideological lines.  All it takes is for the court to swing from conservative majority to liberal majority and the right case to come through to dramatically change the way we regulate firearms.

The vast majority of people are in favor of more regulation, over 90% in favor of universal background checks, and a majority in favor of a registration system for firearms.  Unfortunately the NRA is such a powerful lobby and the gun nuts so fanatical in their devotion that they're effectively drowning out the majority voice.

Over time I think sanity will prevail and we'll look back at these wild west days with the same sense of shame as we do the days before the civil rights movement today.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report