Mass shooting of the day

[silverscreenselect]

Just a couple of normal, average, macho right wing nut jobs. Almost had as much weaponry and ammo as Carly Fiorina.

But you're right, Mr. President. We need to politicize this. Let's go ahead and ignore the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns. No need to go through all the trouble of repealing it. This is 2015, after all. You have a pen and a phone. God's not fixing this, so it's up to you. That will solve the problem, Mr President. If we made it illegal to have a gun, these two wouldn't have had all this stuff. Well, maybe the pipe bombs. They'd have to make more of them to make up for the guns they wouldn't have, because they wouldn't want to break any common sense laws in their planning to kill as many people as they could. That would just be wrong.

And while we're at it Flock, why don't we just repeal all the laws against murder. Obviously, those laws didn't stop that pair from killing people.

[Spock]

There was another mass shooting in Savannah, GA today. No details other than one dead, three wounded.

There have been 355 mass shooting incidents in the U.S. so far this year.

I know you have a hard time with granularity-but 'Gang on Gang" mass shootings are a different animal than San Bernardino/Charleston etc. How many of the mass shootings are gang/drug-related? How many of them are related to mass immigration/open borders from the 3rd World (ie Mexican drug gangs)?

[Bob Juch]

There was another mass shooting in Savannah, GA today. No details other than one dead, three wounded.

There have been 355 mass shooting incidents in the U.S. so far this year.

I know you have a hard time with granularity-but 'Gang on Gang" mass shootings are a different animal than San Bernardino/Charleston etc. How many of the mass shootings are gang/drug-related? How many of them are related to mass immigration/open borders from the 3rd World (ie Mexican drug gangs)?

So how many of those 355 are "gang-on-gang"? What "mass immigration/open borders"?

[Bob Juch]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... pects.html

[flockofseagulls104]

Just a couple of normal, average, macho right wing nut jobs. Almost had as much weaponry and ammo as Carly Fiorina.

But you're right, Mr. President. We need to politicize this. Let's go ahead and ignore the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns. No need to go through all the trouble of repealing it. This is 2015, after all. You have a pen and a phone. God's not fixing this, so it's up to you. That will solve the problem, Mr President. If we made it illegal to have a gun, these two wouldn't have had all this stuff. Well, maybe the pipe bombs. They'd have to make more of them to make up for the guns they wouldn't have, because they wouldn't want to break any common sense laws in their planning to kill as many people as they could. That would just be wrong.

And while we're at it Flock, why don't we just repeal all the laws against murder. Obviously, those laws didn't stop that pair from killing people.

Yeah, you're right. Those darn murder laws don't work. People who really want to kill other people don't seem to obey those laws. What we need are some common sense gun laws. Those will work. Even the people who really want to have guns will obey them, because the left really wants them to be obeyed. Maybe Obama will enforce those laws, since he likes them.

[earendel]

Just a couple of normal, average, macho right wing nut jobs. Almost had as much weaponry and ammo as Carly Fiorina.

But you're right, Mr. President. We need to politicize this. Let's go ahead and ignore the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns. No need to go through all the trouble of repealing it. This is 2015, after all. You have a pen and a phone. God's not fixing this, so it's up to you. That will solve the problem, Mr President. If we made it illegal to have a gun, these two wouldn't have had all this stuff. Well, maybe the pipe bombs. They'd have to make more of them to make up for the guns they wouldn't have, because they wouldn't want to break any common sense laws in their planning to kill as many people as they could. That would just be wrong.

And while we're at it Flock, why don't we just repeal all the laws against murder. Obviously, those laws didn't stop that pair from killing people.

Yeah, you're right. Those darn murder laws don't work. People who really want to kill other people don't seem to obey those laws. What we need are some common sense gun laws. Those will work. Even the people who really want to have guns will obey them, because the left really wants them to be obeyed. Maybe Obama will enforce those laws, since he likes them.

I'm not sure that someone packing heat would have helped in this situation - the perpetrators were wearing body armor.

[BackInTex]

I'm not sure that someone packing heat would have helped in this situation - the perpetrators were wearing body armor.

The police wear body armor. They still take cover when being shot at.

Perhaps someone packing heat would not have been able to take them down but could have kept them under cover while others could escape and delay some shooting altogether until the police arrived.

Believe me, if someone were shooting back it would have helped the situation. Fewer would have died, fewer would have been wounded.

If six of the 100 or so people there were packing, it would have been a completely different outcome. Of course, if the terrorists knew there were some people packing, they likely would have chosen a different target altogether.

[earendel]

I'm not sure that someone packing heat would have helped in this situation - the perpetrators were wearing body armor.

The police wear body armor. They still take cover when being shot at.

Perhaps someone packing heat would not have been able to take them down but could have kept them under cover while others could escape and delay some shooting altogether until the police arrived.

Believe me, if someone were shooting back it would have helped the situation. Fewer would have died, fewer would have been wounded.

If six of the 100 or so people there were packing, it would have been a completely different outcome. Of course, if the terrorists knew there were some people packing, they likely would have chosen a different target altogether.

Maybe, maybe not. If the shooters' goal was terrorism, as it increasingly appears to have been, they may not have been deterred by return fire. They were, after all, willing to take on a SWAT team.

[jarnon]

I'm not sure that someone packing heat would have helped in this situation - the perpetrators were wearing body armor.

Later reports said the terrorists wore military clothing that wasn't bulletproof.

I doubt the county health department allows its employees to be armed. Guns could help in situations like this, but there would be more deaths from workplace arguments.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Here's someone with 8300 rounds of ammo, lots of guns, an assault weapon and body armor, plus a fake ID as an air marshal and a car with emergency lights:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cop ... -1.2455344

The perp looks like a classic Muslim jihadist alright. At least the authorities were tipped by a neighbor on this one.


(That's a joke, son!)

[Bob Juch]

And while we're at it Flock, why don't we just repeal all the laws against murder. Obviously, those laws didn't stop that pair from killing people.

Yeah, you're right. Those darn murder laws don't work. People who really want to kill other people don't seem to obey those laws. What we need are some common sense gun laws. Those will work. Even the people who really want to have guns will obey them, because the left really wants them to be obeyed. Maybe Obama will enforce those laws, since he likes them.

I'm not sure that someone packing heat would have helped in this situation - the perpetrators were wearing body armor.

No, there were not wearing body armor; they were wearing ammo vests with hundreds of rounds in clips.

[Estonut]

They were, after all, willing to take on a SWAT team.

No, they weren't. They had already made their escape from the shooting and encountered the police (including SWAT) as they left their home. Had they been "willing to take on a SWAT team," wouldn't they have just waited for them at the original slaughter scene?

[BackInTex]

They were, after all, willing to take on a SWAT team.

No, they weren't. They had already made their escape from the shooting and encountered the police (including SWAT) as they left their home. Had they been "willing to take on a SWAT team," wouldn't they have just waited for them at the original slaughter scene?

Yeah, I don't think taking on the SWAT team was of their own accord. They were planning on escaping to kill another day.

[silverscreenselect]

Perhaps someone packing heat would not have been able to take them down but could have kept them under cover while others could escape and delay some shooting altogether until the police arrived.

Believe me, if someone were shooting back it would have helped the situation. Fewer would have died, fewer would have been wounded.

You take a highly complex situation and boil it down to one room with easily identifiable gunmen already shooting and ask what would happen if someone else there had been armed. Well, what would have happened if someone packing heat mistook the first police who arrived for the gunmen? This was a large complex with several buildings and lots of offices and people understandably panicking. It took quite a long time for the police to clear the area even though the perps were long gone. The police got there in minutes and their primary goal was to catch the gunmen if they were still in the building. A "good guy with a gun" who got nervous or scared could easily have started some more shooting. There were dozens of other people holed up in other offices unsure of what to do. If any of them were armed and mistook a cop or just someone running wildly and screaming while trying to escape for a perpetrator, you've got more innocent victims.

And putting six people with guns in the office just gives you six opportunities for ordinary workplace arguments or horseplay to turn fatal in the 99.999% of other offices in the country that aren't attacked by people carrying assault rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

[Bob78164]

Perhaps someone packing heat would not have been able to take them down but could have kept them under cover while others could escape and delay some shooting altogether until the police arrived.

Believe me, if someone were shooting back it would have helped the situation. Fewer would have died, fewer would have been wounded.

You take a highly complex situation and boil it down to one room with easily identifiable gunmen already shooting and ask what would happen if someone else there had been armed. Well, what would have happened if someone packing heat mistook the first police who arrived for the gunmen? This was a large complex with several buildings and lots of offices and people understandably panicking. It took quite a long time for the police to clear the area even though the perps were long gone. The police got there in minutes and their primary goal was to catch the gunmen if they were still in the building. A "good guy with a gun" who got nervous or scared could easily have started some more shooting. There were dozens of other people holed up in other offices unsure of what to do. If any of them were armed and mistook a cop or just someone running wildly and screaming while trying to escape for a perpetrator, you've got more innocent victims.

And putting six people with guns in the office just gives you six opportunities for ordinary workplace arguments or horseplay to turn fatal in the 99.999% of other offices in the country that aren't attacked by people carrying assault rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

Didn't we see this scenario play out about a month ago in Israel? The result was an innocent man being shot and killed. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

There was another mass shooting in Savannah, GA today. No details other than one dead, three wounded.

There have been 355 mass shooting incidents in the U.S. so far this year.

I know you have a hard time with granularity-but 'Gang on Gang" mass shootings are a different animal than San Bernardino/Charleston etc. How many of the mass shootings are gang/drug-related? How many of them are related to mass immigration/open borders from the 3rd World (ie Mexican drug gangs)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opini ... ally.html?

NY Times Op-Ed by a Mother Jones Editor.

[Bob78164]

Here is Australia's experience after enacting fairly strict nationwide gun control laws about 20 years ago. Bottom line: significantly fewer violent deaths overall, as well as significantly fewer deaths from firearms. Still waiting for the dictatorship to seize the country, though. --Bob

[Estonut]

Obama Jumps Gun, Blames Second Amendment For Calif. Terrorism

[BackInTex]

Obama Jumps Gun, Blames Second Amendment For Calif. Terrorism

"The people at that party were acting stupidly."

[silverscreenselect]

There was another mass shooting in Savannah, GA today. No details other than one dead, three wounded.

There have been 355 mass shooting incidents in the U.S. so far this year.

I know you have a hard time with granularity-but 'Gang on Gang" mass shootings are a different animal than San Bernardino/Charleston etc. How many of the mass shootings are gang/drug-related? How many of them are related to mass immigration/open borders from the 3rd World (ie Mexican drug gangs)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opini ... ally.html?

NY Times Op-Ed by a Mother Jones Editor.

The problem is that these other shootings are so commonplace nowadays that they don't make the news unless they happen locally or involve very unusual circumstances. So, the general public buys into the idea that there's "only" one or two large scale assaults like Charleston and San Bernadino and then the NRA says that gun laws wouldn't have stopped this shooting and we go back to square one (and for what it's worth, the Republican mantra about toughening up on mental health laws wouldn't have done anything to prevent the California shootings either). If tighter gun laws could cut those shootings by a third, then it would be a great step in the right direction.

[flockofseagulls104]

The problem is that these other shootings are so commonplace nowadays that they don't make the news unless they happen locally or involve very unusual circumstances. So, the general public buys into the idea that there's "only" one or two large scale assaults like Charleston and San Bernadino and then the NRA says that gun laws wouldn't have stopped this shooting and we go back to square one (and for what it's worth, the Republican mantra about toughening up on mental health laws wouldn't have done anything to prevent the California shootings either). If tighter gun laws could cut those shootings by a third, then it would be a great step in the right direction.

OK, What exactly do you want? Do you want to be like Australia? Do you think that will reduce these shootings by a third? If so, go for it. If you want to ban guns like Australia does, you can do it. And if you are successful, I would be on your side. But I haven't heard anyone in power talk about starting the process of repealing the 2nd Amendment. If you did that, even the evil NRA would have nothing to say about it.

If you are not willing to start that process, exactly what do you want to do? Include how you believe those steps would be effective, where any required funding would come from and how it would be constitutional.

[BackInTex]

If you are not willing to start that process, exactly what do you want to do? Include how you believe those steps would be effective, where any required funding would come from and how it would be constitutional.

He wants to be able to be shot without anyone being able to defend him.

[silverscreenselect]

He wants to be able to be shot without anyone being able to defend him.

No, I want to reduce the chances of getting shot by law abiding citizens like you.

[flockofseagulls104]

He wants to be able to be shot without anyone being able to defend him.

No, I want to reduce the chances of getting shot by law abiding citizens like you.

Don't worry about me. I don't own one. You want to repeal the 2nd amendment? Go for it. Knock yourself out. But don't talk about Australia unless you get that done first.

[CarShark]

I don't remember the last time a narrative changed so dramatically. First, it was three white men, so liberals shouted about gun control and conservatives talked about gun-free zones. Now, it's a pair of Muslims and liberals were calling it "workplace violence" and conservatives called it "terrorism". What was so surprising was how effortlessly people shifted their lines of attack.

I used to think that if you read a few national papers you would be well-read and have a decent grasp of the world around you. Over the past few years, I've realized that a big chunk of the news is the preconceived notions of the reporters and editorial staffs. Also, why the hell were they rummaging around in the couple's apartment like they were trying to find his lost keys? Ridiculous.