BREAKING NEWS--CA--Another Mass Shooting

[MikeK]

I'm going to stick my neck out here, but I believe this is the right way for America, and other countries, to go.

Ban all public ownership of handguns, only allowing hunting weapons, single shot at that (Except double barreled shotguns).
Anyone found with anything other than the few types of legal gun should face the death penalty, regardless of if they were committing other crime at the time or not.

In other words you'd like to transform America into something like Saudi Arabia. What form of death penalty would you recommend? Beheading?

If what you're proposing is the alternative to these occasional psychopathic shooting episodes, I'll take my chances with the psychos rather than living in a country where I am threatened with death for exercising an important Constitutional protection.

 

[Pogo]

I'm going to stick my neck out here, but I believe this is the right way for America, and other countries, to go.

Ban all public ownership of handguns, only allowing hunting weapons, single shot at that (Except double barreled shotguns).
Anyone found with anything other than the few types of legal gun should face the death penalty, regardless of if they were committing other crime at the time or not.

In other words you'd like to transform America into something like Saudi Arabia. What form of death penalty would you recommend? Beheading?

Well he did say he was "sticking his neck out"....

 

[MikeK]

Reminder he killed three people with a knife and one with his car

so he killed more people with a knife

and cnn is reporting that this mass shooting left seven dead

that is pretty disingenuous

Why disingenuous?

I think it's a relevant and rather important observation because it demonstrates that guns are not the only way to kill. And banning guns will not remedy the obvious problem of increasing psychopathology in American society.

If there were no guns the crazies would resort to other ways of killing lots of people -- like knives, axes, fire-bombs, explosives, razor-sharpened machetes, gas explosions, motor vehicle impacts -- and I'll wager others here can add to that short list.

My thoughts on the subject are it's too bad there wasn't a responsible armed citizen in the vicinities of all these mass killings, one who could return fire and take the killer out. So maybe the problem is not too many guns but too few.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm going to stick my neck out here, but I believe this is the right way for America, and other countries, to go.

Ban all public ownership of handguns, only allowing hunting weapons, single shot at that (Except double barreled shotguns).
Anyone found with anything other than the few types of legal gun should face the death penalty, regardless of if they were committing other crime at the time or not.

In other words you'd like to transform America into something like Saudi Arabia. What form of death penalty would you recommend? Beheading?

Well he did say he was "sticking his neck out"....

Well, you know what they say, if the neck fits...

 

[hunarcy]

Reminder he killed three people with a knife and one with his car

so he killed more people with a knife

and cnn is reporting that this mass shooting left seven dead

that is pretty disingenuous

Why disingenuous?

I think it's a relevant and rather important observation because it demonstrates that guns are not the only way to kill. And banning guns will not remedy the obvious problem of increasing psychopathology in American society.

If there were no guns the crazies would resort to other ways of killing lots of people -- like knives, axes, fire-bombs, explosives, razor-sharpened machetes, gas explosions, motor vehicle impacts -- and I'll wager others here can add to that short list.

My thoughts on the subject are it's too bad there wasn't a responsible armed citizen in the vicinities of all these mass killings, one who could return fire and take the killer out. So maybe the problem is not too many guns but too few.

I think the problem is that we don't want to deal with the mentally ill, so we leave them to their own devices. We see them as they live on the street or live an ignored life, getting worse and worse while we avert our eyes because society won't take care of them.

 

[Pogo]

Reminder he killed three people with a knife and one with his car

so he killed more people with a knife

and cnn is reporting that this mass shooting left seven dead

that is pretty disingenuous

Why disingenuous?

I think it's a relevant and rather important observation because it demonstrates that guns are not the only way to kill. And banning guns will not remedy the obvious problem of increasing psychopathology in American society.

Yeah I didn't get "disingenuous" either. He made two statements that were not mutually exclusive and then called the juxtaposition 'disingenuous'.

If there were no guns the crazies would resort to other ways of killing lots of people -- like knives, axes, fire-bombs, explosives, razor-sharpened machetes, gas explosions, motor vehicle impacts -- and I'll wager others here can add to that short list.

All of which take more time and trouble than a gun does, which is part of the reason the firearm is the go-to method.

However this theory is based on the assumption that "killing people" is the objective of these insane shooters. I don't think it is. If it were, we should see mass murderers employing bombs, poisons, machetes, cars, you name it, evenly-randomly across the board. Yet what we see is a distinct preference for firearms. That tells us the choice is deliberate, and has something to do with the nature of using firearms -- rather than simply extracting the inevitable result.

Murder is personal. It's person-specific and based on a specific reason, however irrational. Say a man finds his wife having an affair with a co-worker and decides to kill her for it. Further stipulate at the time he finds this out, she isn't there. Does he go to his neighbor or the postman to kill them just because they're nearby? No, he goes to her specifically even if he has to wait. Because she is his target - personally.

These mass shooters employ no such specificity. They're shooting random people, whoever makes a good target at the time and in the moment. Doesn't matter who they are or what they've done or not done. The person of the target is irrelevant; the act of shooting is paramount.

To me that strongly indicates the motivation of a mass shooter is a different thing from the motivation of a murderer. His objective has nothing to do with the target victim personally. It has far more to do with the sensory input of what he's doing. It has to do with the act itself.

Firearms deliver what a poison, a bomb, a machete can't -- sensory feedback on a scale that's immediate and graphic and can be purveyed from a distance upon multiple victims simultaneously. And if there's anyone who doesn't know they deliver that, they are quickly brought up to speed by our culture and our media that work 24/7 to get the word out.

That's what I believe their objective is, and why they're not going to clubs and truncheons when they can't get a gun. Death is not the objective; the act of shooting is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

How did this guy pass a background check?
Simple: He had not met any of the conditions that disqualified him for a purchase of a firearm.
That is, it was not iillegal for him to own a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm going to stick my neck out here, but I believe this is the right way for America, and other countries, to go.
Ban all public ownership of handguns...

Yeah.... too bad this, specifically, violates the constitution.
That, and there's no sound argument for doing so.

 

[Pogo]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Good to see that M14 is still robo-posting the same lame line, oblivious to the thread's actual content. It must suck to have nothing to say.

 

[hunarcy]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

How did this guy pass a background check?
Simple: He had not met any of the conditions that disqualified him for a purchase of a firearm.
That is, it was not iillegal for him to own a gun.

True...but his family knew he was emotionally fragile and could get no help because we as a society refuse to deal effectively with the mentally ill.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, what we have here is a spoiled rotten rich little liberal faggot who cant get a piece of Foxnewslike hottie ass, so he jerks off, hops in his Beamer and kills people in a no-gun zone/no gun state.

After which, his father immediately blames the NRA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Good to see that M14 is still robo-posting the same lame line...

Thank you for proving my point. Carry on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

How did this guy pass a background check?
Simple: He had not met any of the conditions that disqualified him for a purchase of a firearm.
That is, it was not iillegal for him to own a gun.

True...but his family knew he was emotionally fragile and could get no help because we as a society refuse to deal effectively with the mentally ill.

Which is, of course, an entirely seperate issue.

 

[hunarcy]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

How did this guy pass a background check?
Simple: He had not met any of the conditions that disqualified him for a purchase of a firearm.
That is, it was not iillegal for him to own a gun.

True...but his family knew he was emotionally fragile and could get no help because we as a society refuse to deal effectively with the mentally ill.

Which is, of course, an entirely seperate issue.

I don't think it's a separate issue. The family bears most of the responsibility, not the background check system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True...but his family knew he was emotionally fragile and could get no help because we as a society refuse to deal effectively with the mentally ill.

Which is, of course, an entirely seperate issue.

I don't think it's a separate issue. The family bears most of the responsibility, not the background check system.

The shooter bears the responsibility.

 

[Pogo]

Good to see that all the usual anti-gun loons are happily helping to prove the premise that they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Good to see that M14 is still robo-posting the same lame line, oblivious to the thread's actual content. It must suck to have nothing to say.

Thank you for proving my point. Carry on.

Actually you turned the point on yourself, specifically "dishonesty" when you edited part of my post out. You must have been afraid of what it said, and there's your "emotion". The ignorance we already covered when we noted you put the same lame robo-line in a thread where nothing but rational discussion was going on.

So no, thank YOU. You got all three, done hit the trifecta.

Now that that's out of the way -- got any actual input here?

No?


Didn't think so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good to see that M14 is still robo-posting the same lame line, oblivious to the thread's actual content. It must suck to have nothing to say.

Thank you for proving my point. Carry on.

Actually you turned the point on yourself, specifically....

I know you hate the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - but there's nothing -I- can do about that.

 

[hunarcy]

Thank you for proving my point. Carry on.

Actually you turned the point on yourself, specifically....

I know you hate the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - but there's nothing -I- can do about that.

You're arguing with a pathetic pile of pus who will never get off my ignore list because he hasn't got an argument, just rants.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you for proving my point. Carry on.

Actually you turned the point on yourself, specifically "dishonesty" when you edited part of my post out. You must have been afraid of what it said, and there's your "emotion". The ignorance we already covered when we noted you put the same lame robo-line in a thread where nothing but rational discussion was going on.

So no, thank YOU. You got all three, done hit the trifecta.

Now that that's out of the way -- got any actual input here?

No?


Didn't think so.

I know you hate the fact that you can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - but there's nothing -I- can do about that.

..... Link?

Still afraid to quote me huh? Must be hell, cowering in fear like that.

 

[hunarcy]

Which is, of course, an entirely seperate issue.

I don't think it's a separate issue. The family bears most of the responsibility, not the background check system.

The shooter bears the responsibility.

yes, I agree he bears the responsibility for the choices he made. But, the family bears the rest.