Thoughts and prayers to Lewiston ME

[silverscreenselect]

Tell me how to get crazy people, domestic violence, and gangs to ratchet themselves down. Oh, and drug deals and such.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... me-rep-fa/

You can't always get crazy people to ratchet themselves down. If they don't have access to assault rifles, you can prevent them from killing 18 people in a few minutes. And if you have good red flag laws in place, you can keep a lot of them from killing anyone.

And while crimes in general are often committed by guns obtained illegally (often because they're committed by repeat offenders who can't legally purchase guns anymore), the guns used in mass shootings are overwhelmingly obtained legally:

https://www.propublica.org/article/texa ... -shootings

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... s-weapons/

[Beebs52]

But who kills most people? I mean...

[Beebs52]

I am tired of talking about the back and forth of death. I shall absent myself from the thread.

[flockofseagulls104]

Hey, I disagree with the good doctor 100%, and goes without saying that anything I believe, SSS is totally opposed to. So, can I be called a monster, too? I don't have that on my signature yet.

[BackInTex]

Hey, I disagree with the good doctor 100%, and goes without saying that anything I believe, SSS is totally opposed to. So, can I be called a monster, too? I don't have that on my signature yet.

Should we start a University?

[Weyoun]

Hey, I disagree with the good doctor 100%, and goes without saying that anything I believe, SSS is totally opposed to. So, can I be called a monster, too? I don't have that on my signature yet.

You disagree 100%? So you think gun deaths are not bad?

[flockofseagulls104]

Hey, I disagree with the good doctor 100%, and goes without saying that anything I believe, SSS is totally opposed to. So, can I be called a monster, too? I don't have that on my signature yet.

You disagree 100%? So you think gun deaths are not bad?

Perfect example as to why it is futile to try and reason with a leftist. So that is why I don't even try anymore. The only way to answer that is with sarcasm, and

1. I don't feel particularly sarcastic tonite and
2. He would take it literally anyway.

But maybe I'll say yes, so he'll call me a monster.

[silverscreenselect]

Perfect example as to why it is futile for me to try and reason with a leftist. So that is why I don't even try anymore.

Fixed it for 'ya.

[Weyoun]

Apparently some of the folks shot were deaf and having a party when that asshole decided to shoot them.

Reminds me of the Tree of Life shooting - down the road from me - where the killer killed old Jews and intellectually disabled Jews going to service.

You know, the folks our wackos here think should perpetually pack heat in case someone shoots at them.

The dead can be stacked like cordwood at this point - there are no numbers or studies you can cite which show that lives saved by this mad policy offset this huge human loss.

And that’s not including the random acts of gun violence, which are also tragic and preventable (shoutout to Spock).

[flockofseagulls104]

Guns are here. They were released by Pandora's box. There is no policy or well-intentioned or common-sense gun law that's gonna confiscate or get rid of all guns, or keep them out of the hands of people who have mental problems or have no regard for the law. Never. No way. Not no how. It is irrational, IMO, to think passing laws will make any difference. Criminals and insane people just don't obey laws. And if they want to get a gun bad enough, they will get one. Or use another weapon.

The only way all guns can be confiscated is by a government that controls everything, reserves all weaponry and power to its law enforcement wing, and eliminates all people who don't comply. That has been tried several times. Do we want that here?

The root cause is not guns. It is cultural. Our culture is somehow producing people who commit these heinous acts. This is in addition to religious factions who believe they are called upon to commit inhuman atrocities on innocent people. But no one on any side of this issue wants to address that or even admit it. And even if that is accepted, what can the government possibly do to solve it, except for the disgusting option above?

Even if we face the truth about the root cause, it cannot be fixed overnight. How do we handle these awful situations when they break out? I have a proposal that I don't think has ever been put forward. Even the most 'common-sense gun law' advocate believes that only our trained and appointed law enforcement officials should respond and take action once these situations occur. What if we ask our trusted law enforcement officials to create a 'Citizen Deputy' program, in which they train volunteers from the law-abiding citizenry how to use their firearms, when and when not to use their firearms and how to react when and if they are caught up in dangerous situations? If these private citizens pass the rigorous certification, they become certified 'Citizen Deputies' and they go about their lives, but are expected to be armed at all times.

If, God forbid, they happen to be caught in one of these situations, they will be trained as well as possible to do what they can to prevent the situation from escalating. It will be like having an armed marshal hidden among passengers in an airplane. And they will be there well before any law enforcement officials can get there, while the crime is in progress, not afterward. There are innumerable examples of armed, law-abiding citizens preventing and/or limiting the possible scope of predators just by being there and taking action. They just aren't covered extensively by our wonderful media.

Instead of giving guns to teachers, let's let our trusted law enforcement come up with training they believe is adequate to produce Citizen Deputies. I am sure that millions of concerned people would volunteer, even when knowing the dangers involved. If it gets implemented and participation is high, citizens will know that if a mass shooting situation occurs, there may be several Citizen Deputies in the crowd to help prevent the situation from escalating and stop the perpetrator if possible. It might also make common criminals think twice before they act.

That's my idea. Now someone here can tell me how stupid I am and can call me a monster.

[Weyoun]

A fantasy. MORE guns. What could go wrong?

I am reminded of the Indiana mall shooter, and how the “citizen deputy” who popped him off with a highly accurate shot only did so after three people died and two were maimed.

Sure, if you accept that with citizen deputies acting with 100% efficiency people will still get killed and be maimed as a “solution”… but then you would be a moron.

The Maine shooter was in the National Guard and had red flags… another universe’s citizen deputy.

Just accept that other countries don’t have this problem yet somehow aren’t less free than us.

[silverscreenselect]

What if we ask our trusted law enforcement officials to create a 'Citizen Deputy' program, in which they train volunteers from the law-abiding citizenry how to use their firearms, when and when not to use their firearms and how to react when and if they are caught up in dangerous situations? If these private citizens pass the rigorous certification, they become certified 'Citizen Deputies' and they go about their lives, but are expected to be armed at all times.

Military basic training is 6 to 13 weeks in which recruits live in barracks and receive constant instruction. The Georgia Public Safety Training Center, which is mandatory for all police officers in Georgia without prior experience is 11 weeks of 8-5 classes, followed by exams. I would assume other states have roughly similar requirements.

This is far more rigorous than what Flock probably imagines, a day or two of lectures followed by a few hours on the firing range. As Weyoun said, Robert Card would have been an excellent candidate to become a CItizen Deputy. Then he would have his badge on him when he went on his killing spree.

[flockofseagulls104]

Of course, no one addressed the first part of my post. because they can't. And they never will. Because if they do, and they're honest about it, the arguments they so passionately and consistently advance are moot. Aren't they? So they ignore it and go on spouting their narrative. Expected.

[silverscreenselect]

Guns are here. They were released by Pandora's box. There is no policy or well-intentioned or common-sense gun law that's gonna confiscate or get rid of all guns, or keep them out of the hands of people who have mental problems or have no regard for the law. Never. No way. Not no how. It is irrational, IMO, to think passing laws will make any difference. Criminals and insane people just don't obey laws. And if they want to get a gun bad enough, they will get one. Or use another weapon.

I assume this is the "first part" of Flock's post that he says that my arguments are moot. Nobody ever said that banning the sale of AR-15 style assault rifles will prevent all criminals from getting one. But that seems to be Flock's argument. If a law can't prevent everything bad, we might not as well have one. Laws against murder and drunk driving don't keep everyone from committing those crimes. But a lot more people think twice about not getting behind the wheel when they've had a few drinks. The vast majority of the guns used in mass shootings are purchased legally and they're not purchased by habitual criminals. Take away easy access to an AR-15 and you limit the damage a deranged person can do.

[flockofseagulls104]

Guns are here. They were released by Pandora's box. There is no policy or well-intentioned or common-sense gun law that's gonna confiscate or get rid of all guns, or keep them out of the hands of people who have mental problems or have no regard for the law. Never. No way. Not no how. It is irrational, IMO, to think passing laws will make any difference. Criminals and insane people just don't obey laws. And if they want to get a gun bad enough, they will get one. Or use another weapon.

I assume this is the "first part" of Flock's post that he says that my arguments are moot. Nobody ever said that banning the sale of AR-15 style assault rifles will prevent all criminals from getting one. But that seems to be Flock's argument. If a law can't prevent everything bad, we might not as well have one. Laws against murder and drunk driving don't keep everyone from committing those crimes. But a lot more people think twice about not getting behind the wheel when they've had a few drinks. The vast majority of the guns used in mass shootings are purchased legally and they're not purchased by habitual criminals. Take away easy access to an AR-15 and you limit the damage a deranged person can do.

Take away access to any weapon from a law-abiding citizen and you are violating the Constitution. You are strengthening the power of the government over the citizens, who are the ultimate authority in this country. You limit the ability of law-abiding people to protect themselves against deranged lunatics. And by letting the government arbitrarily decide who can have weapons to defend themselves, you allow deranged people not to even have to think twice about committing their reprehensible acts. Your arguments do not hold water unless you ignore all the truths I stated before presenting my idea. Which is normal for you.

[silverscreenselect]

And by letting the government arbitrarily decide who can have weapons to defend themselves, you allow deranged people not to even have to think twice about committing their reprehensible acts. Your arguments do not hold water unless you ignore all the truths I stated before presenting my idea. Which is normal for you.

And as usual, your "truths" come from some right-wing website, not actual crime statistics. Most spree shooters like the one in Maine are suicidal. They expect to get caught or killed. Their fantasy is to go out in a blaze of glory. So the idea that they might "think twice" that someone inside a bar or bowling alley is armed doesn't fit their psychological makeup. On the other hand, if they don't have an assault rifle that allows them to fulfill their fantasy, they may well think twice or just go off in a corner and kill themselves.

[earendel]

Take away access to any weapon from a law-abiding citizen and you are violating the Constitution.

Just to be clear, are you saying that there should be absolutely no prohibition on someone owning any type of gun they wish?

[flockofseagulls104]

And by letting the government arbitrarily decide who can have weapons to defend themselves, you allow deranged people not to even have to think twice about committing their reprehensible acts. Your arguments do not hold water unless you ignore all the truths I stated before presenting my idea. Which is normal for you.

And as usual, your "truths" come from some right-wing website, not actual crime statistics. Most spree shooters like the one in Maine are suicidal. They expect to get caught or killed. Their fantasy is to go out in a blaze of glory. So the idea that they might "think twice" that someone inside a bar or bowling alley is armed doesn't fit their psychological makeup. On the other hand, if they don't have an assault rifle that allows them to fulfill their fantasy, they may well think twice or just go off in a corner and kill themselves.

Maybe you should look at actual crime statistics some day.

[kroxquo]

Take away access to any weapon from a law-abiding citizen and you are violating the Constitution.

Just to be clear, are you saying that there should be absolutely no prohibition on someone owning any type of gun they wish?

I was going to ask the same question. By the logic you presented, I should be allowed to own a rocket launcher, or a tank, or an atomic bomb. If that is the case, God help us all. If it is not, than you do agree that there should be regulation and restriction and it is just a matter of degree that we disagree about.

[silverscreenselect]

Maybe you should look at actual crime statistics some day.

Such as? Please show me.