Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Fucking Guns

1434446484958

Comments

  • mousethief wrote: »
    What kind of home does one have to have that one needs an AR15 to defend it from a swat team? One has to invent ridiculously improbable potentialities to justify having absurd amounts of fire power in citizen hands.

    And ignore the huge potential for accidents and fuckups, and all the times people's "reasonable fear" is unfounded and someone winds up dead.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    mousethief wrote: »
    What kind of home does one have to have that one needs an AR15 to defend it from a swat team? One has to invent ridiculously improbable potentialities to justify having absurd amounts of fire power in citizen hands.

    And ignore the huge potential for accidents and fuckups, and all the times people's "reasonable fear" is unfounded and someone winds up dead.

    Such people have a strange bifurcation in their thinking. "This is all too likely to happen to me" when it comes to absurd scenarios of home invasion, and "This could never happen to me" when it comes to documented and all-too-frequent mistakes that result in roommates and children being killed accidentally.
  • Do you see that there are differences between someone asleep in their own home finding armed men bursting into his home and using a gun to defend himself, and someone deliberately travelling to another town (irrespective of the distance or any connection he might have there) with a military grade weapon to confront BLM protestors out of some belief that these mostly peaceful protests threaten someone else? Totally different circumstances, so no way any reasonable person could draw a comparison (obviously the far right editors and contributors to legalinsurrection don't fall into my definition of 'reasonable people')

    The question is what does the evidence show in the light of the relevant laws.

    In retirement I have not found it as easy as I had expected to find time to go on the internet. When I recently logged onto the Ship of Fools site, I was astounded at what I saw. Events at Kenosha are hard to miss being widely reported by the media. Personally, I have no great interest in them but what I had seen was at considerable variance to posts on this site, assuming the reliability of the information source.

    The shooter had driven a great distance to reach the town.
    He had actually driven 21 miles to the town where his father lives; he was a local boy.

    The gun had been illegally held.
    Not so; judge dismissed the claim. Personally, I have a great deal of difficulty in coping with a society that allows a 17-year-old to walk around town with a loaded rifle but considers it inappropriate for him to drink a beer.

    The shooter was a white supremacist
    I have seen podcasts with President Biden making this claim; the BBC in reporting on this makes the comment that there is no evidence of this. That the President, and the Vice-President, of the United States of America makes such claims without evidence speaks volumes about their fitness for the High Offices of State they occupy. I see it regularly repeated by various media yet never evidenced; why do people give it credence?

    The shooter was a vigilante
    Vigilante
    a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
    Which group was he a member of? All the video evidence I have seen shows the shooter running away to distance himself, so firing is a last resort, without any other group around him. If he actively attacked as a vigilante why is there no video evidence demonstrating that?

    The jury verdict is perverse
    The jury actually saw all the evidence and spent a significant amount of time debating it. They reached a unanimous verdict. Legal opinion seems to confirm the appropriateness.

    Without any evidence, posters here seem to KNOW that the defendant is guilty. Tell me, how did lynchings work?

    That the President and Vic-President appear to dispute the outcome of the jury in the manner that they do merely adds to my feelings of disgust and contempt for them as people and as holders of public office; I am glad not to be an American. The RIGHT seems to think the shooter is a hero, which I find equally disgusting. The foolish boy got himself in a situation that he should never have been in that resulted in his shooting three men, two fatally. This is in no way heroic.

    I guess I should treat the description of being a RACIST TROLL as a badge of honour as I suppose you are a nobody until you have such an accolade … but perhaps not. My wife always says the best career move she made was to marry me, thereby dropping her maiden name for mine. So now she has a thoroughly English name with a thoroughly English education and a thoroughly English career, speaks with a thoroughly English accent and when she enters the job interview room smiles as she routinely sees the confusion on the faces of interviewers who are trying to match the thoroughly English CV with the evidently non-white candidate in front of them; have candidates and CVs got muddled? As a: Christian, male from the tallest 1% of the population and in a mixed-race marriage I guess I could fill a book with stories of discrimination.

    I suggest a moment of reflection might be fruitful. People here seem to not trouble with evidence because they KNOW the defendant is guilty.


  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    A jury has seen the evidence and reached a conclusion over a three-week period. Apparently, people here are legal experts who know better. Wallow away in your self-righteousness.
    You're avoiding the question - which is typical troll behaviour, and imputing motives on other people - which is typical troll behaviour, and creating strawmen - which is typical troll behaviour.

    You claim to respect the law, yet you don't respect the law when it becomes inconvenient to you. Which is not just typical troll behaviour, but typical white racist behaviour.

    Also, we're wallowing in sorrow, not self-righteousness. So fuck off back under your rock and leave the pity-party to the rest of us.


    Assertions and allegations seem to be readily made here without any evidence. For example, the claim is made that the defendant was a white supremacist although there is no evidence that this is the case. A case of breaching the commandment not to bear false witness? There is no use of the terms: Allegedly, Supposedly, Purportedly, Ostensibly, Reputedly.

    As a young man I was subjected to a violent assault. Due to my size the police started by trying to make me the perpetrator. The witness statements corroborated my version of events. The police followed the evidence and my assailant eventually ended up in court; I had ended the night in hospital.

    I have peered over the rim of evidence-less justice and am not impressed. Who needs evidence when you KNOW the defendant is guilty. How did a lynching work?
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    edited November 2021
    Originally posted by Hagen the Dwarf:
    The shooter had driven a great distance to reach the town.
    He had actually driven 21 miles to the town where his father lives; he was a local boy.


    There might be a pond difference here. There isn't anywhere within 21 miles of my home which wouldn't involve slowing down / stopping for roundabouts / traffic lights / the car in front of me waiting for a gap in traffic to turn right. 21 miles would generally be a 40 min drive for me. If I had to be on time for something 21 miles away, I'd allow an hour to get there, just to be on the safe side.

    When I hear "21 mile drive" I hear "he'd driven the best part of an hour to get there."
  • Why call it the "Arbery trial"?
    Because Arbery was murdered and those who did it were on trial. Call it whatever you please. Miss Amanda is sorry she chose words that don't please you. She'll know to consult you next time to obtain pre-approval.

    I quite agree with your naming; remember the victims and not the perpetrators. I have not and will not name the shooter at Kenosha, even though he has been found innocent. When you do not like the law you change the law, you do not find someone who is innocent under the law guilty. If you want to find someone guilty you produce the evidence.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    How did a lynching work?

    Admin hat on

    So you're appropriating a thing that white people did to black people - murdering them in cold blood with out any form of judicial input - to suggest that some white boy should face justice for killing two men is somehow a lynching.

    Don't you dare try using that phrase again because I will ban your arse harder than a hard thing. This is literally your only and final warning. Do not do this shit here.

    Doc Tor
    SoF Admin
  • FFS: a 15 year old in Michigan has shot at least 9 other students at his high school, 3 of whom are dead. Who the fuck gave a 15 year old access to a gun? :rage:
  • The shooter was a vigilante
    Vigilante
    a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
    Which group was he a member of? All the video evidence I have seen shows the shooter running away to distance himself, so firing is a last resort, without any other group around him. If he actively attacked as a vigilante why is there no video evidence demonstrating that?

    I've always found argument by dictionary to be somewhat perverse. Yes, the etymology originally referred to members of "vigilance committees", but word usage changes over time and so "vigilante" has come to mean "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime", which seems to describe Rittenhouse's self-described actions and motivations very well indeed. He claimed to have been on the streets with his gun in order to protect a car dealership and was not empowered by any governmental entity to do so, hence he qualifies as a "vigilante" in the contemporary sense of the term.

    Still, if you want to get caught up in technicalities the Proud Boys are very much a vigilante group in the classic sense of the term. Here's Mr. Rittenhouse hanging out with them at a bar while out on pre-trial parole, flashing the 'OK sign' that's been adopted by white supremacists as a white power sign. That incident led to the judge in his case issuing a restraining order against Rittenhouse having further contact with white supremacists until the conclusion of the trial, which may answer one of your other questions about why some people think Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.

    Rittenhouse now claims the photo with the Proud Boys was set up by his lawyer, which as an explanation ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework" or "I'm just holding it for a friend".
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The shooter was a vigilante
    Vigilante
    a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
    Which group was he a member of? All the video evidence I have seen shows the shooter running away to distance himself, so firing is a last resort, without any other group around him. If he actively attacked as a vigilante why is there no video evidence demonstrating that?

    I've always found argument by dictionary to be somewhat perverse. Yes, the etymology originally referred to members of "vigilance committees", but word usage changes over time and so "vigilante" has come to mean "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime", which seems to describe Rittenhouse's self-described actions and motivations very well indeed. He claimed to have been on the streets with his gun in order to protect a car dealership and was not empowered by any governmental entity to do so, hence he qualifies as a "vigilante" in the contemporary sense of the term.

    Still, if you want to get caught up in technicalities the Proud Boys are very much a vigilante group in the classic sense of the term. Here's Mr. Rittenhouse hanging out with them at a bar while out on pre-trial parole, flashing the 'OK sign' that's been adopted by white supremacists as a white power sign. That incident led to the judge in his case issuing a restraining order against Rittenhouse having further contact with white supremacists until the conclusion of the trial, which may answer one of your other questions about why some people think Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.

    Rittenhouse now claims the photo with the Proud Boys was set up by his lawyer, which as an explanation ranks right up there with "the dog ate my homework" or "I'm just holding it for a friend".

    In fairness it's possible Rittenhouse is thick as pigshit as well as being a premeditated killer.
  • There was another school shooting here in Phoenix yesterday that I don't think has made national news.

    Apparently Student A bought a gun from Student B and paid with counterfeit money. When Student B confronted him, Student A shot him with his new gun.

    Would almost be comical if it weren't so pathetic.

    What really bothers me is that these incidents have become so common that they're hardly newsworthy anymore. My brother, who taught at an inner city high school until retiring, also told me as much.
  • FFS: a 15 year old in Michigan has shot at least 9 other students at his high school, 3 of whom are dead. Who the fuck gave a 15 year old access to a gun? :rage:

    The news had armfuls of guns being carried out of his family's home.

    We see plenty of examples in courtrooms of parents of convicted murderers swearing blind that their child is a good boy (it's usually a boy), and wouldn't do what he's just been convicted of.

    At least most of these parents are completely deluded.

    It's not hard to imagine a parent thinking "my kid is a sensible kid. He knows not to go in the gun cabinet." I don't own guns, but that's pretty much exactly what I think about power tools. Most of my power tools are in places that the kids have routine access to. They know not to mess with them, or to use them without supervision.

    But of course, power tools aren't generally an attractive target for an angry kid who wants to attack someone.
  • FFS: a 15 year old in Michigan has shot at least 9 other students at his high school, 3 of whom are dead. Who the fuck gave a 15 year old access to a gun? :rage:

    Update: the parents of this kid have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. The implication is that the prosecutors allege that the parents were more than negligent.
  • Update: the parents of this kid have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. The implication is that the prosecutors allege that the parents were more than negligent.

    Some alleged details:
    McDonald said that on Nov. 21, a teacher at Oxford High observed Ethan searching for ammunition on his cell phone during class, and reported it to school officials. Administrators left a voicemail for Jennifer Crumbley and followed up with an email, but received no response. Jennifer then texted Ethan, saying, “lol I’m not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught,” McDonald said.

    <snip>

    When alerts went out about a possible active shooter at Oxford High School, Jennifer texted her son, “Ethan, don’t do it,” McDonald said.

    “Upon hearing there was an active shooter that day, James Crumbley went straight to his home to look for his gun,” she explained.

    About 15 minutes later, Crumbley called 911 to report that his gun was missing from his house and “that his son could be the shooter,” McDonald said.

    The parents also allegedly ignored warnings from the school about disturbing drawings and messages made by their son at school. If your first reaction after hearing there was a shooting at your child's school is "OMG, my kid's the shooter" and not "OMG, I hope my kid wasn't shot", then there's something pretty screwed up going on.

    Quite honestly, even negligence should be criminal when it comes to gun ownership.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Quite honestly, even negligence should be criminal when it comes to gun ownership.

    Depends how far negligence extends. I agree with the general sentiment, but also know that people make mistakes all the time. Making a mistake is a normal part of the human condition.

    That's why, for example, you don't point a gun that you "know" isn't loaded at someone, because you might have made a mistake. You build systems that are tolerant of people's natural propensity for error.

    If you routinely store your guns in a locked cabinet, but on one occasion get distracted and fail to lock the cabinet, that's a normal human error. If you routinely store it on the coffee table, that's negligent. Better would be to have a gun cabinet that automatically locked, so you couldn't close it but leave it unlocked. That helps prevent a bad consequence of error.

    But because people are idiots, and people also like to cast blame, then the first response of a substantial number of people to any incident is "whose fault was it", followed by an attempt to dump all the blame on whichever schmuck was unlucky enough to make a mistake this time.
  • But because people are idiots, and people also like to cast blame, then the first response of a substantial number of people to any incident is "whose fault was it", followed by an attempt to dump all the blame on whichever schmuck was unlucky enough to make a mistake this time.

    Yeah, that tends to happen when your 'oopsie' gets multiple people killed or injured.
    On the morning of the shooting, the prosecutor said, Crumbley's teacher found a drawing on Ethan's desk depicting a handgun, bullet and shooting victim, with the words "the thoughts won't stop, help me."

    Disturbed, the teacher informed school authorities, who called both James and Jennifer Crumbley to the school, where they were told they would be required to seek counseling for their son.

    "Both James and Jennifer Crumbley failed to ask if their son had his gun with him or where his gun was located, and failed to inspect his backpack for the presence of the gun, which he had with him," McDonald said.

    The parents "resisted the idea" of Ethan leaving school at that time, [ Oakland County prosecutor Karen ] McDonald said.

    How many (alleged) red flags are we up to? At some point you cross over the line from "honest mistake" to "depraved indifference to the lives and safety of others".
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited December 2021
    Crœsos wrote: »
    How many (alleged) red flags are we up to? At some point you cross over the line from "honest mistake" to "depraved indifference to the lives and safety of others".

    Oh, sure. This doesn't look at all like a reasonably responsible person making a mistake. I'm not defending this case on the grounds of "mistake" - I'm defending the concept that you have to allow for people making normal human errors.


    But if a genuine "oopsie" gets multiple people killed or injured, then the problem isn't that you made an error - the problem is that you have a systemic vulnerability to a single error that kills a bunch of people.
  • But if a genuine "oopsie" gets multiple people killed or injured, then the problem isn't that you made an error - the problem is that you have a systemic vulnerability to a single error that kills a bunch of people.

    Yeah, the "systemic vulnerability" would be people keeping deadly weapons at home without good reason and with utterly inadequate regulation.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    How many (alleged) red flags are we up to? At some point you cross over the line from "honest mistake" to "depraved indifference to the lives and safety of others".
    Oh, sure. This doesn't look at all like a reasonably responsible person making a mistake. I'm not defending this case on the grounds of "mistake" - I'm defending the concept that you have to allow for people making normal human errors.

    But if a genuine "oopsie" gets multiple people killed or injured, then the problem isn't that you made an error - the problem is that you have a systemic vulnerability to a single error that kills a bunch of people.
    1. This is not an example of "a single error" but rather a whole bunch of them in one single direction with fairly foreseeable consequences
    2. The "systematic vulnerability" here seems to be the way the Crumbleys systematically dodged, overrode, or ignored all the systematic safeguards in place warning about exactly this outcome (e.g. their alleged resistance to their son getting counseling)
    3. If your point has nothing to do with what's being discussed, I'm not so sure it's a "point" so much as a "distraction" or "attempt to change to subject"
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    [*] If your point has nothing to do with what's being discussed, I'm not so sure it's a "point" so much as a "distraction" or "attempt to change to subject"[/list]

    You wrote
    Quite honestly, even negligence should be criminal when it comes to gun ownership.

    That's a general statement about laws surrounding gun ownership, and not a specific comment about the individuals in this case. I'm agreeing with the spirit of your comment, whilst being cautious about where you draw the line for "negligence" given both the human propensity for error and for casting blame.

    Given that the parents in this case have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, implying conduct that goes well beyond mere negligence, then they're not a very useful example for thinking about where the line between negligence and error should fall.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I know someone who used to hold a shot gun license (he shot clay pigeons on his own land), and lost that as a result of negligence leading to the gun being used in a crime - specifically the negligence of letting it be known that he had a gun, resulting in a criminal gang breaking into his home while they were out, ripping the gun cupboard from the wall in the attic and cutting it open with power tools, then selling the gun on to someone who used it in a robbery. But, that's UK gun control laws not US.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Crœsos wrote: »
    But because people are idiots, and people also like to cast blame, then the first response of a substantial number of people to any incident is "whose fault was it", followed by an attempt to dump all the blame on whichever schmuck was unlucky enough to make a mistake this time.

    Yeah, that tends to happen when your 'oopsie' gets multiple people killed or injured.
    On the morning of the shooting, the prosecutor said, Crumbley's teacher found a drawing on Ethan's desk depicting a handgun, bullet and shooting victim, with the words "the thoughts won't stop, help me."

    Disturbed, the teacher informed school authorities, who called both James and Jennifer Crumbley to the school, where they were told they would be required to seek counseling for their son.

    "Both James and Jennifer Crumbley failed to ask if their son had his gun with him or where his gun was located, and failed to inspect his backpack for the presence of the gun, which he had with him," McDonald said.

    The parents "resisted the idea" of Ethan leaving school at that time, [ Oakland County prosecutor Karen ] McDonald said.

    How many (alleged) red flags are we up to? At some point you cross over the line from "honest mistake" to "depraved indifference to the lives and safety of others".

    Why didn't the school search his backpack?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    3. If your point has nothing to do with what's being discussed, I'm not so sure it's a "point" so much as a "distraction" or "attempt to change to subject"
    You wrote
    Quite honestly, even negligence should be criminal when it comes to gun ownership.

    That's a general statement about laws surrounding gun ownership, and not a specific comment about the individuals in this case. I'm agreeing with the spirit of your comment, whilst being cautious about where you draw the line for "negligence" given both the human propensity for error and for casting blame.

    Given that the parents in this case have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, implying conduct that goes well beyond mere negligence, then they're not a very useful example for thinking about where the line between negligence and error should fall.

    "Negligence" (in the legal sense) implies not taking whatever care a reasonable person would take in a given situation. For example, a parent lending their car to their teenaged child is not necessarily negligent. A parent lending their car to their unlicensed teenaged child and giving them a six pack of beer definitely is and I don't think anyone would be shocked if a prosecutor sought to hold the parents legally accountable for this latter example.

    In related news, the Crumbley parents were apprehended late last night after missing their arraignment hearing. There's some speculation they were trying to flee the country. Feel free to debate whether that's an honest mistake as well.
  • What strikes me is that I recognise both the student and the parents in this case (as types rather than individuals). Here they'd have been a pain in the arse but the damage would be limited because neither parents nor child would have ready access to guns.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    In related news, the Crumbley parents were apprehended late last night after missing their arraignment hearing. There's some speculation they were trying to flee the country. Feel free to debate whether that's an honest mistake as well.

    OK. I'll say this in short sentences, because you apparently need that sort of clarity.

    Find where I have claimed that the Crumbley parents have made "honest mistakes".

    I'll give you a clue: you won't find it.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Question: in this situation, why was the hostage taker shot after the hostages had escaped ? Why not continue to negotiate with him ?
  • Question: in this situation, why was the hostage taker shot after the hostages had escaped ? Why not continue to negotiate with him ?

    Have you seen what colour the hostage taker is?
  • Question: in this situation, why was the hostage taker shot after the hostages had escaped ? Why not continue to negotiate with him ?

    I suppose when he has hostages, there's something to negotiate over - he has some bargaining chips. Once the hostages escaped, he's lost all his leverage.

    There was apparently then a "stand-off", which to me implies he was offered the opportunity to surrender, but didn't. The article didn't say how long the stand-off was. @Arethosemyfeet's observation that this was a Muslim gunman taking hostages in a synagogue probably does make him about the least sympathetic hostage taker in the eyes of the average Texas cop.
  • A call between the hostage taker and his family, who tried to talk him down, suggests he was aiming to get himself killed.

  • There was apparently then a "stand-off", which to me implies he was offered the opportunity to surrender, but didn't. The article didn't say how long the stand-off was. @Arethosemyfeet's observation that this was a Muslim gunman taking hostages in a synagogue probably does make him about the least sympathetic hostage taker in the eyes of the average Texas cop.

    According to the news the standoff went on for over eleven hours 😱 The rabbi sounds like quite an unusual guy - here's an interview he did with NPR where he talks about calming the gunman over a period of hours, and then escaping with his congregants by throwing a chair at the man while he was distracted.

    According to other clergy on Twitter the rabbi's been involved in interfaith initiatives in Colleyville for some time, including a successful Muslim-Jewish friendship program, and is well loved in the community.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    And fuck the MPD. They lynched another Black man, Amir Locke. Shot and killed him 9 seconds after storming into his friend's apartment where he was dead asleep on the couch. Here's a link that's not behind a paywall.
  • amybo wrote: »
    And fuck the MPD. They lynched another Black man, Amir Locke. Shot and killed him 9 seconds after storming into his friend's apartment where he was dead asleep on the couch. Here's a link that's not behind a paywall.

    This is basically identical to the killing of Breonna Taylor, and completely fucking predictable.

    What does anyone think the likely outcomes of bursting in to someone's home in the middle of the night are?

    Amir Locke was asleep on his friends' couch with his legally-owned gun.

    He was woken by the sound of people breaking the door down.

    This is America. If this is a burglary or home invasion, Amir Locke is quite entitled to use his gun to defend himself against the obvious threat.

    If it's the police, he isn't.

    And if it's the police executing a "no-knock" warrant, then they're basically indistinguishable from burglars or home invaders. Which means you're basically guaranteed to end up with someone getting shot.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Just caught this as breaking news here, at least nine shot dead in Buffalo NY by white guy in military-like outfit shouting racist slurs. Yet more victims of politicians too scared to actually do anything to curtail availability of guns.
  • Just caught this as breaking news here, at least nine shot dead in Buffalo NY by white guy in military-like outfit shouting racist slurs. Yet more victims of politicians too scared to actually do anything to curtail availability of guns.

    It's a hundred miles down the road from here, across the border. Buffalo is a rough and ready place but cultured, a good place, and this is a shock. It's just a few miles from the US/Canada border. It could happen here, but doesn't; not on that scale, anyway. There's hardly anything on this earth as ugly as the belief in white supremacy.
  • Anyone want to lay bets on whether the fucker would have been taken alive if he'd been black?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Anyone want to lay bets on whether the fucker would have been taken alive if he'd been black?

    A gentleman never bets on a sure thing.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Just caught this as breaking news here, at least nine shot dead in Buffalo NY by white guy in military-like outfit shouting racist slurs. Yet more victims of politicians too scared to actually do anything to curtail availability of guns.

    Ten people were killed. Eight blacks and two whites. Three people were wounded.

    Maybe it is time to reconsider the 2nd Amendment.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Just caught this as breaking news here, at least nine shot dead in Buffalo NY by white guy in military-like outfit shouting racist slurs. Yet more victims of politicians too scared to actually do anything to curtail availability of guns.

    Ten people were killed. Eight blacks and two whites. Three people were wounded.

    Maybe it is time to reconsider the 2nd Amendment.

    The problem here was racism, not someone in the backwoods of Wyoming owning a hunting rifle. Dr Jen Golbeck on Twitter (who researches this kind of thing for a living) has some good comments on this (and she owns a handgun as she lives and goes running in a rural area).
  • Pomona wrote: »
    The problem here was racism, not someone in the backwoods of Wyoming owning a hunting rifle. Dr Jen Golbeck on Twitter (who researches this kind of thing for a living) has some good comments on this (and she owns a handgun as she lives and goes running in a rural area).

    I'd say there were two problems here - one is racism, and the other is a tolerance for violence that considers it acceptable to go and shoot a bunch of people if you're angry.

    Some shooters are angry about race. Some shooters are angry because they can't get women to date them. Some shooters are angry because they've been fired from their jobs. Some shooters are angry because the cool kids won't play with them.

    The commonality here is someone getting angry over something, and thinking that that makes it OK to go and shoot a bunch of people.

  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    But, getting angry and thinking about shooting somebody is (relatively) harmless if getting hold of a gun and ammunition to actually go and shoot someone isn't very easy.
  • But, getting angry and thinking about shooting somebody is (relatively) harmless if getting hold of a gun and ammunition to actually go and shoot someone isn't very easy.

    Yes indeed. If you don't have ready access to lethal weapons, then uncontrolled angry people do less harm. If you don't have uncontrolled angry people, lethal weapons do less harm.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    I'd suggest that it's going to be easier to stop guns being readily available to angry people than to stop people getting angry.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    There's been another mass shooting, in a church in California.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Just caught this as breaking news here, at least nine shot dead in Buffalo NY by white guy in military-like outfit shouting racist slurs. Yet more victims of politicians too scared to actually do anything to curtail availability of guns.

    Ten people were killed. Eight blacks and two whites. Three people were wounded.

    Maybe it is time to reconsider the 2nd Amendment.

    My heart is wondering at the difference between a black man allegedly trying to use a counterfeit $20 who is executed on the street, in public, and a white man who travels hundreds of miles to kill ten people and injure three others, and was taken alive. My brain cannot wrap around that.

    Note: I'm not at all saying that the shooter should have been killed on Saturday, just that the reaction to different scenarios seems to be skewed.

    I think we can all say the young white man was not part of a well-regulated militia and was not protecting his home.

    Again, so many of us are absolutely sickened by this hate and way beyond ready for it to stop. Thoughts and prayers don't cut it.
  • Has anyone asked the NRA* whether they believe this person, and others like him, should have had a gun; and, if not, what would they have done to prevent him from having one?

    * National Rifle Association
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Perhaps he is "pro-life", at least if it's not yet born and not yet born. In that case, it's all OK, or so might say various American legislatures.
  • rhubarbrhubarb Shipmate
    There is nothing the rest of the world can do. Americans need to make a choice themselves to get rid of all their guns, but it seems they choose not to.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The motivation behind the killings was Replacement Theory, which holds that the Democrats are working to replace white voters with immigrants (mostly from the South) who will likely vote Democrat once they reach full citizenship. This is promoted by Tucker Carlson on FOX News.

    Could Carlson be held liable for promoting it, especially if it can be shown the shooter was listening to Carlson?
  • I am pro-gun control but I’m not sure exactly what laws should be passed or how successful they would be. The shooter in Buffalo was able rather easily to alter the gun he purchased in NY State, which has strict gun laws, with parts bought elsewhere to become a type of assault weapon banned in the state. Any national ban on assault weapons would face similar challenges because even if you go after the parts needed to alter a non-assault rifle into an assault rifle I’ve read that those restrictions would not be hard to get around.

    Any program that tried to get people to hand in guns that were banned under a new law would be very hard here because of the staggering number of guns out there, both legally and illegally owned, not to mention the frightening resistance I imagine there would be to such a law. The US also has a land border with Mexico that makes it easier to smuggle weapons in than in Australia.

    It’s not any easier to pass and might not be constitutional, but I would rather require that every firearm in the country be registered like vehicles are and linked to its legal owner, who would have to have a firearm license that would be similar to a drivers’ license in the steps needed to attain one and keep one (some states already have this, whereas firearm licenses in other states are much more lax, but it should be required in all states). Any weapon found not to be registered should be seized and either destroyed or registered and resold. Possessing an unregistered firearm should result not only in criminal penalty but in suspension of one’s firearm license for a long time if not permanently. Anyone without a license, which include everyone under 18 if not 21 I think, should be banned from shooting a firearm anywhere or carrying a firearm in public. And of course mandatory background checks should be extended to straw purchases (second hand person to person sales), gifts (since this would require a change of registered owner), gun shows, and even adding a family member’s name to a gun’s registration as a licensed user of a gun, like with cars. None of these might have stopped the shooting in Buffalo, but the gun violence problem in this country is much broader than mass shootings carried out by lone actors with no criminal record. (Although maybe his mental health and school record should have been a red flag on a background check if the laws were written better).

    That said, I’d be happy to see all firearms gotten rid of other than those needed for hunting, protecting herds, etc. Does anyone have any idea how the US could actually do this?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I think it will take a much more liberal SCOTUS to address this. Previously liberal courts have emphasized the need for a well regulated militia to keep the security of the state. More conservative courts emphasize the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

    One law that needs to be strengthened are the Red Flag laws which essentially say if an individual is determined to be a threat to himself or others, the courts can order the confiscation of whatever weapons the individual has. It also mandates gun shop owners cannot sell firearms to any individual tagged under a Red Flag Law. In the case of the Buffalo shooter, his high school once called the police because he was threatening to shoot up the school. The State Police interviewed him and took him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation. But, then, someone dropped the ball. He should have been tagged under the Red Flag law New York has in place.
Sign In or Register to comment.