Jilted boyfried shoots two and himself at mall

[Pogo]

A semi-automatic rifle with military style decorations wasn't the weapon used here. He used Joe Biden's weapon of choice.

There is no evidence the shooter was a felon prior to this incident.

Ooookaaay... well since I said nothing about semiautos or any other kind of firearm, since I said nothing about Joe Biden, and since I said nothing about the shooter's history of felony or anything else, this entire post is random irrelevance.

No, you pointed me to post #53 which would lead one to believe you want background checks and or waiting periods.

The reports say the police believe the shooter bought his weapon in Montgomery Cty in Dec. One would have to assume he bought the weapon legally, so no felony convictions.

You also referred me to a link where you mentioned limiting possession of assault weapons, or as I put it semi-automatic rifles.

Now, I had asked you what your solution would be so I assumed that was your answer.

I was merely pointing out that your solution would not have prevented this incident.

Do you want to try again?

Apparently you're new to the reading thing. I've never posted anything about background checks or waiting periods, ever, neither here nor anywhere else. Nor did I opine on where the shooter acquired his weapon. Nor do I care. Nor did I refer you to any link that had anything in the remotest to do with "limiting possession of assault weapons", or with assault weapons at all, or with 'limiting' anything. Not even close. Complete airball.

You went 0-for-4 here, and 0-for-3 on the last post, which similarly had absolutely zero to do with the post quoted. I'm beginning to wonder if you could find your own nose if I spotted you both hands and a road map.


And by the way (not unrelated), your avatar is bullshit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yep, and maybe that is why there were less fatalities, or maybe because he got his target and then decided his life was over. We can't ask him, can we peckerhead?

There were LESS fatalities because he used a shotgun?
You know his motive now, Dick Tracey ?

What a numbnut….

How many shells did his shotgun hold?

 

[Wry Catcher]

He used a shotgun, skid-mark

"Violence and murder will never be eradicated, there is no panacea for man's inhumanity to man. There are ways to reduce the number of killings by firearm, something that you and others will never support. Hence, you are part of the problem."

The above applies to you too. Both paragraphs are mine and I stand by them, the short disgusting sentence is yours (as if anyone needed to be told).

You're talking about automatic weapons and multiple-round clips, etc., shitstain. The Columbia, Maryland mall shooter used a shotgun.
Do you need it dumbed-down more?

No, you dumb it down each time you post. Only a concrete thinker like you would draw the conclusion from my post that I referenced yesterday's shooting. But don't feel too bad, you're not as dumb as some, only more profane and sexually confused.

BTW, you don't seem to know the difference between a clip and a magazine? What where you, a ball-bearing wave or a bus boy serving officer's country?

 

[Warrior102]

How many shells did his shotgun hold?

Don't know. If he had an SRM 1216 - the answer would be 16.

Next idiotic "what if?"

 

[KGB]

Another angry shooter enable by the NRA/GOP with lax and sloppy gun laws.

He was not a member of any well-regulated militia, and was not using it for self-protection.

Yea, he looks like a typical NRA/GOP type:

He is yet another black thug who most likely has a criminal history but was given a second chance by Democrap types who think thugs deserve a second chance.

He was enabled by the GOP/NRA. I never said he was a member of either. Their insistence on loose and sloppy gun laws made it easy for him to get a gun. Who was he protecting himself against? What well-regulated militia was he in?

And your obsession with race is noted.

it was a shot gun and if you actually lived in Maryland, you would know we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.....

 

[emilynghiem]

Judging by the pictures, I'd say the gunman did all of society a service. The gene pool ends here, thank God.

"She was all excited because she was the manager there,' he said.
He said he had spoken with his daughter, Brianna's mother, earlier in the day, but didn't know who the gunman was or whether the person knew his granddaughter.
'It's senseless. It's totally, totally senseless,' he said.
He described his daughter's family as a military family that had moved frequently and had been in Colorado before moving to Maryland about two years ago. He said his granddaughter was on good terms with her son's father, and they shared custody.
'I mean what can you say? You go to work and make a dollar and you got some idiot coming in and blowing people away,' he said.
=================

Dear Pennywise: Killing people after the fact doesn't solve the problem leading up to this violence.

Even if the gunman only killed himself, suicide isn't the answer either.

Judging the "value" of people by their "images" is also part of the problem;
people who kill for control treat people as "objects" to be owned as a symbol of power,
so this attitude of judging people on the surface doesn't help but makes it worse.
If we are going to "evolve" as a society, we could start by not judging each other this way.

we can do more to prevent abuse crime and violence earlier on, instead of waiting until things go terribly wrong to point fingers of blame. That doesn't solve or prevent it in the future.

Arguing about gun laws doesn't address the cause of abusive bullying attitudes and mental or social disorder. These tragic losses, and divisive arguments after the fact, detract attention and resources away from the focus on real intervention and action that makes a difference in breaking the cycle of abuse, poverty and crime.

If we focused on what really changes criminal attitudes and patterns, we'd be too busy solving the problems of crime to argue about symptoms and legislation after the fact.

 

[Warrior102]

Yea, he looks like a typical NRA/GOP type:

He is yet another black thug who most likely has a criminal history but was given a second chance by Democrap types who think thugs deserve a second chance.

He was enabled by the GOP/NRA. I never said he was a member of either. Their insistence on loose and sloppy gun laws made it easy for him to get a gun. Who was he protecting himself against? What well-regulated militia was he in?

And your obsession with race is noted.

it was a shot gun and if you actually lived in Maryland, you would know we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.....

Thats working out real good
See baltimores murder rate lately?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yea, he looks like a typical NRA/GOP type:

He is yet another black thug who most likely has a criminal history but was given a second chance by Democrap types who think thugs deserve a second chance.

He was enabled by the GOP/NRA. I never said he was a member of either. Their insistence on loose and sloppy gun laws made it easy for him to get a gun. Who was he protecting himself against? What well-regulated militia was he in?

And your obsession with race is noted.

it was a shot gun and if you actually lived in Maryland, you would know we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.....

Why not require all citizens to take the same training and oath as police officers and military? Especially where firearms are concerned, but even for citizenship I would require the same oath to defend Constitutional laws and equal rights/freedoms/protection for all people.

So if people do not have intent to protect the security of themselves and others equally, that will get screened or diagnoses during the training. People would fail the psychological tests the same way we need consistent screening for police and military before issuing guns.

However, if politicians and parties are too busy fighting to push blame, then
such a policy will get pushed aside instead of being pushed as a common solution.

I brought up this idea on my night shift at work, to require all citizens to sign agreements to uphold the laws or agree to pay the costs of incarceration, prosecution etc. and I was treated like a foreign creature from another world. This ideas was unheard of to them.

They expected taxpayers to buy insurance to pay the costs of health care for people who couldn't pay, but coudn't understand to hold the actual wrongdoers for the cost of crime OR NOT COMMITTING ANY.

Why not teach all citizens Constitutional concepts of due process, right of security and equal protection of the laws.Why not require this when citizens turn 18 in order to be legally responsible? And if they cannot afford the costs or risks, then they must have a guardian or parent sign, agreeing to pay the costs if this individual is convicted of premeditated crimes, especially involving abuse of a firearm which should require police training and military oath.

Why not? I'd much rather argue and have THAT debate than sit around arguing over taking away 2nd Amendment rights. Why not ADD Constitutional requirements to only use arms for DEFENSE of the laws for all people equally and never abuse them for attack and crimes.

Have every citizen sign an agreement, and either pay the costs for committing premediated crimes or agree to "forfeit citizenship" for breaching the contractual duties and responsibility for financial debts damages and restitution. How would this impact crime?

 

[KGB]

He was enabled by the GOP/NRA. I never said he was a member of either. Their insistence on loose and sloppy gun laws made it easy for him to get a gun. Who was he protecting himself against? What well-regulated militia was he in?

And your obsession with race is noted.

it was a shot gun and if you actually lived in Maryland, you would know we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.....

Thats working out real good
See baltimores murder rate lately?

of course, it's ridiculous. The lunacy in Annapolis is maddening. Again, blame the innocent victims for crimes & steal our rights.

 

[KGB]

He was enabled by the GOP/NRA. I never said he was a member of either. Their insistence on loose and sloppy gun laws made it easy for him to get a gun. Who was he protecting himself against? What well-regulated militia was he in?

And your obsession with race is noted.

it was a shot gun and if you actually lived in Maryland, you would know we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.....

Why not require all citizens to take the same training and oath as police officers and military? Especially where firearms are concerned, but even for citizenship I would require the same oath to defend Constitutional laws and equal rights/freedoms/protection for all people.

So if people do not have intent to protect the security of themselves and others equally, that will get screened or diagnoses during the training. People would fail the psychological tests the same way we need consistent screening for police and military before issuing guns.

However, if politicians and parties are too busy fighting to push blame, then
such a policy will get pushed aside instead of being pushed as a common solution.

I brought up this idea on my night shift at work, to require all citizens to sign agreements to uphold the laws or agree to pay the costs of incarceration, prosecution etc. and I was treated like a foreign creature from another world. This ideas was unheard of to them.

They expected taxpayers to buy insurance to pay the costs of health care for people who couldn't pay, but coudn't understand to hold the actual wrongdoers for the cost of crime OR NOT COMMITTING ANY.

Why not teach all citizens Constitutional concepts of due process, right of security and equal protection of the laws.Why not require this when citizens turn 18 in order to be legally responsible? And if they cannot afford the costs or risks, then they must have a guardian or parent sign, agreeing to pay the costs if this individual is convicted of premeditated crimes, especially involving abuse of a firearm which should require police training and military oath.

Why not? I'd much rather argue and have THAT debate than sit around arguing over taking away 2nd Amendment rights. Why not ADD Constitutional requirements to only use arms for DEFENSE of the laws for all people equally and never abuse them for attack and crimes.

Have every citizen sign an agreement, and either pay the costs for committing premediated crimes or agree to "forfeit citizenship" for breaching the contractual duties and responsibility for financial debts damages and restitution. How would this impact crime?

I'm all for training, but we are talking about a Constitutional right here. A lot of what you addressed (due process, equal protection, etc.) should be covered by any civics class in high school. Back to training, I think basic gun safety and handling should be introduced in grade school & given yearly updates. We have drivers ed for high schoolers, no reason we shouldn't have gun safety as well.

I do have an issue with requiring an oath however. Oaths are given freely. People willingly choose to join the military or police force where said oaths are administered. It doesn't translate into the civilian world very well nor should it. Plus, if accountability and liability are the concerns, those are already covered under the multitudes of laws that already exist, but aren't properly enforced.

On the whole, I'm not sure that you're desired effect will occur by what you outlined. Taking bits and pieces would go further.

 

[Iceweasel]

The dichotomy of these stories is always interesting. The left places all the blame the firearms and anyone that supports the right to own them and the right sees the left as being largely responsible for the deterioration of the culture that gives root to this sort of madness and wants to take away their ability to defend themselves from it.

 

[Defiant1]

it was a shot gun and if you actually lived in Maryland, you would know we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.....

Why not require all citizens to take the same training and oath as police officers and military? Especially where firearms are concerned, but even for citizenship I would require the same oath to defend Constitutional laws and equal rights/freedoms/protection for all people.

So if people do not have intent to protect the security of themselves and others equally, that will get screened or diagnoses during the training. People would fail the psychological tests the same way we need consistent screening for police and military before issuing guns.

However, if politicians and parties are too busy fighting to push blame, then
such a policy will get pushed aside instead of being pushed as a common solution.

I brought up this idea on my night shift at work, to require all citizens to sign agreements to uphold the laws or agree to pay the costs of incarceration, prosecution etc. and I was treated like a foreign creature from another world. This ideas was unheard of to them.

They expected taxpayers to buy insurance to pay the costs of health care for people who couldn't pay, but coudn't understand to hold the actual wrongdoers for the cost of crime OR NOT COMMITTING ANY.

Why not teach all citizens Constitutional concepts of due process, right of security and equal protection of the laws.Why not require this when citizens turn 18 in order to be legally responsible? And if they cannot afford the costs or risks, then they must have a guardian or parent sign, agreeing to pay the costs if this individual is convicted of premeditated crimes, especially involving abuse of a firearm which should require police training and military oath.

Why not? I'd much rather argue and have THAT debate than sit around arguing over taking away 2nd Amendment rights. Why not ADD Constitutional requirements to only use arms for DEFENSE of the laws for all people equally and never abuse them for attack and crimes.

Have every citizen sign an agreement, and either pay the costs for committing premediated crimes or agree to "forfeit citizenship" for breaching the contractual duties and responsibility for financial debts damages and restitution. How would this impact crime?

I'm all for training, but we are talking about a Constitutional right here. A lot of what you addressed (due process, equal protection, etc.) should be covered by any civics class in high school. Back to training, I think basic gun safety and handling should be introduced in grade school & given yearly updates. We have drivers ed for high schoolers, no reason we shouldn't have gun safety as well.

I do have an issue with requiring an oath however. Oaths are given freely. People willingly choose to join the military or police force where said oaths are administered. It doesn't translate into the civilian world very well nor should it. Plus, if accountability and liability are the concerns, those are already covered under the multitudes of laws that already exist, but aren't properly enforced.

On the whole, I'm not sure that you're desired effect will occur by what you outlined. Taking bits and pieces would go further.

I'm against any law requiring a person owning a weapon to identify themselves as such.

 

[Pogo]

The dichotomy of these stories is always interesting. The left places all the blame the firearms and anyone that supports the right to own them and the right sees the left as being largely responsible for the deterioration of the culture that gives root to this sort of madness and wants to take away their ability to defend themselves from it.

It is a cultural issue, that's a vital point. But cultural issues are not legislated, influenced or in any way driven by politics. It's the other way around.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another angry shooter enable by the NRA/GOP with lax and sloppy gun laws.

Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, fat ass.

He was not a member of any well-regulated militia

Who said he needed to be?

The Constitution.

Your statement is, of course, a lie.
Thank you for helping to prove yet again that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another angry shooter enable by the NRA/GOP with lax and sloppy gun laws.

He was not a member of any well-regulated militia, and was not using it for self-protection.

Yea, he looks like a typical NRA/GOP type:

He is yet another black thug who most likely has a criminal history but was given a second chance by Democrap types who think thugs deserve a second chance.

He was enabled by the GOP/NRA. I never said he was a member of either. Their insistence on loose and sloppy gun laws made it easy for him to get a gun. Who was he protecting himself against? What well-regulated militia was he in?

Thank your for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[blackhawk]

Will there now be a call to ban shotguns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one has a fighting chance when shot by a sniper, or when a weapon with a high rate of fire is reloaded with every finger pull from a high capacity magazine. Yet gun enthusiasts have been told that to outlaw one type of firearm is the precursor to outlaw all guns. Though that argument is illogical, it seems to convince most gun owners.

He used a shotgun, skid-mark

Yep, and maybe that is why there were less fatalities

This is a resoudingly stupid suggestion.
He was in the place for 30 mimutes before w started shooting, and he apparently had particular people as a target.
Fact of the matter is your usual bigoted lament about 'assault weapons' has no place here.

 

[Pogo]

Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, fat ass.



Who said he needed to be?

The Constitution.

Your statement is, of course, a lie.
Thank you for helping to prove yet again that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

The board echolaliac chimes in yet again with the same old trite phrase, oblivious to what the words mean and laboring under the impression that anyone in the world reads his textual diarrhea.

There's a famous quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, but regardless of that I believe posting the same thing over and over is against the board rules.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Question for the anti-gun loons:

What gun control law woud have stopped this kid from getting this gun?

 

[novasteve]

Question for the anti-gun loons:

What gun control law woud have stopped this kid from getting this gun?

Banning guns