Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Slade3200]

Your right there, both groups seem to be on the payroll of CNN

you caught me in mid post
leftist have no problem defending Antifa you will not find right wingers defending White supremacist

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

I didn’t say racist... you’re the first one to bring in that word. I said it was a defense of the Nazis by making a vague watered down statement attacking their opponents and complimenting people they were protesting with

 

[Brain357]

Yes countries that have never been filled with guns have never had a mass shooting problem. Go figure.

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

 

[NotYourBody]

You go with that line of thinking. Maybe you can help those folks drum up a lawsuit.

I'm happy with the professional security who took out the shooter in less than one minute.

Only a tiny fraction of shooting victims are whacked at festivals. I'm trying to address the big problem

You should start with crap like this -

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article233263433.html?intcid=connatix

Brought to you by the North Carolina deplorables at "Cherokee" Guns.

The store is in the Tremendous County of Cherokee, in North Carolina. Why the "" around "Cherokee"? The efforts of the Squad to disarm the American people is notorious

Because I don't think the Cherokee people identify with Deplorables.

Native Americans have been long-time victims of voter suppression efforts and as a group they largely vote for Democrats When they can vote.

The term "cherokee" here refers to the LOCATION, Cherokee County, not the Cherokee tribe

It's a BAD look. The Cherokee name belongs to Native Americans.

 

[Slade3200]

Are you asking if I’ve ever been in a situation where I’ve had to fight for my life? The answer is no. My experience simply comes from living my life. And I’m not telling anybody what they need or don’t need to prevail in a fight. My hope would be that we learn skills to avoid and diffuse fights so that they don’t happen.

How come you didn’t answer my question? Not very nice manners to answers questions with questions.

Why do you people always appeal to the ridiculous?

I'm surprised you didn't use a nuclear missile in your example

Next time time formulating am actual counter argument and explain yourself. That’s how debates work

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

 

[Blues Man]

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

 

[emilynghiem]

Guess you haven't noticed but the left quickly jumps on the blame train

Another mass killing by a white supremacist. You must be disappointed. You were hoping for a Hispanic or better yet an illegal Hispanic

White supremacist /Antifa what different does it make?

Your right there, both groups seem to be on the payroll of CNN

you caught me in mid post
leftist have no problem defending Antifa you will not find right wingers defending White supremacist

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

Dear Slade3200
bigrebnc1775 is right.
Fine people referred to historic preservationists
and others on both sides of the Confederate history debate
that were focused on historic issues not on white supremacists, nationalists or race.

More information came out later, after the liberal spin in the media was already established as predominant,
that diverse groups of people (some in SUPPORT of PRESERVING HISTORIC STATUES and some OPPOSED who believed such statues should be removed) came out to that protest, including Asian and Black participants from Texas on BOTH sides of the debate.

This fuller explanation and context was conveniently left out in the media hype.

NOTE: So was the REST of Trump's more recent statement where he referred to Omar going BACK to her country of origin,
and FIX THE PROBLEMS IN THOSE PLACES.

In other words, show you can fix the problems before trying to tell other people and govt how to fix them.

 

[Slade3200]

you caught me in mid post
leftist have no problem defending Antifa you will not find right wingers defending White supremacist

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

 

[Brain357]

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

 

[Blues Man]

Why do you people always appeal to the ridiculous?

I'm surprised you didn't use a nuclear missile in your example

Next time time formulating am actual counter argument and explain yourself. That’s how debates work

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere

 

[iceberg]

you caught me in mid post
leftist have no problem defending Antifa you will not find right wingers defending White supremacist

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

I didn’t say racist... you’re the first one to bring in that word. I said it was a defense of the Nazis by making a vague watered down statement attacking their opponents and complimenting people they were protesting with

here we go wordsmithing again.

you intentionally misrepresented trump and what he said. of that we've made clear. now why do you do that? it was not a defense of the nazis that may have in fact been there, it was saying there are good people who want things REMOVED and there are good people who want shit to STAY PUT.

so fine. you called him a nazi supporter or defender then, knowing that wasn't who he was addressing. i won't bother to ask why at this point.

moving on.

 

[NotYourBody]

was there a metal detector?

Was there a fence?

Yes

 

[iceberg]

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

and that was just as stupid. like i've said many times, "revenge politics sucks" yet people say NOT FAIR when done to them and call it stupid.

then turn right around and do it themselves and say "but they did it first". you wanna do that feel free. just don't try to pass yourself off as an adult in the process.

 

[Blues Man]

We don't have a problem

mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

 

[Polishprince]

The term "cherokee" here refers to the LOCATION, Cherokee County, not the Cherokee tribe
It's a BAD look. The Cherokee name belongs to Native Americans.

The name "French's mustard" and "French fries" don't "belong" to the French people? Or do they?

Do the Germans have any control over"German measles"?

How about the Thais over people who are "Siamese twins"?

Just because "Cherokee" also applies to a tribe of Indians doesn't mean it can't be used by anyone else.

 

[Slade3200]

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

No I didn’t intentionally misrepresent it. This issue has been beaten to death, anybody who is paid attention knows what he said and the context that it was said in. I’m not saying he called Nazis good people. I’ve made that argument since it happened. But when Nazis march the streets and kill a woman and the president goes on attack against the people protesting them and co flares the issues then that is watering down the severity of what they did. Sorry man but that is a form of defense. Disgusting, I know

the president was seeing and addressing the bigger picture of what got them ALL there. not trying to take sides.

demanding someone take your side all the time or they are evil is yes, disgusting. i know.

I’d hope the POTUS and the rest of America would take a very clear strong and definitive side against Nazis on American soil. That transcends politics, or at least it should. Look how Trump attacks other issues and opponents and look how he handled this one. Night and day. There was no need to bring up the good people on both sides. The situation was well past statutes and on to Nazis and a dead girl. But he needed to attack ANTIFA and point the finger and that’s how he did it.

 

[NotYourBody]

My thoughts and prayers go out to the 18 to 21 year old white supremacists in California who, because of a new CA law, must drive to Nevada to buy their semi-automatic rifles.

So much for gun control laws eh? Apparently the park's gun-free zone did absolutely 0 to stop this human excrement. If the park-goers were armed and guns were ubiquitous and open-carry, this little fuck would have been taken down sooner than a few minutes. Don't get me wrong, the cops did a great job but, they are only capable of doing so much in a crowd. If everyone was allowed to carry arms this guy would have been snuffed sooner IMO. In fact, the little piss-pants coward probably would have been too afraid to do what he did.

The shooter was taken out within ONE MINUTE by police officers who were at the festival to provide security.

I prefer that method. I doubt Cletus could get the gun out of holster in time. And guaranteed Sally Jane could not dig it out of her purse that fast.

You pretend that all the festival goers would be on high alert, guns at the ready. But that's what they paid the cops to do and it worked out as best as can be expected.

So what you suggesting? Have a police presence throughout the whole community big enough for the police to respond within 60 seconds?

Most people aren't at a festival, they are in a barroom, a tavern, a cocktail lounge or other location. Are you willing to pay for enough cops to keep an eye on all of those locations 24/7?

Me? I'm suggesting a ban on guns similar to Australia. But gun nutters are a fearful bunch, and there are a lot of you in this country. I don't hold out any hope that my suggestion will ever be followed.

Barring that, I prefer the Gilroy festival method. The festival organizers arrange and pay for security. Professional security. Not armchair cowboy security.

The gun ban didn't lower the homicide rates in Australia either.....actual research...

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work | National Review

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

=======

2007 report..

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf

Conclusions Examination of the long-term trends indicated that the only category of sudden death that may have been influenced by the introduction of the NFA was firearm suicide
------

However, this effect must be considered in light of the findings for suicide (non-firearm). Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia. The introduction of the NFA appeared to have a negative effect on accidental firearm death. However, over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability. Any conclusions regarding the effect of the NFA on accidental firearm death should be approached with caution
=========

2008 report...


http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
-------

6. Conclusion

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

You can find a paper to support any position you want.

I would also be okay with a complete ban on any and all guns. With harsh felony punishments for offenders.

 

[NotYourBody]

The term "cherokee" here refers to the LOCATION, Cherokee County, not the Cherokee tribe
It's a BAD look. The Cherokee name belongs to Native Americans.

The name "French's mustard" and "French fries" don't "belong" to the French people? Or do they?

Do the Germans have any control over"German measles"?

How about the Thais over people who are "Siamese twins"?

Just because "Cherokee" also applies to a tribe of Indians doesn't mean it can't be used by anyone else.

I'm sure the Cherokee are thrilled.

I was born and raised in Oklahoma.

 

[iceberg]

You know he means on both sides of the issue itself.

But that doesn't help you build your image of him.

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

No I didn’t intentionally misrepresent it. This issue has been beaten to death, anybody who is paid attention knows what he said and the context that it was said in. I’m not saying he called Nazis good people. I’ve made that argument since it happened. But when Nazis march the streets and kill a woman and the president goes on attack against the people protesting them and co flares the issues then that is watering down the severity of what they did. Sorry man but that is a form of defense. Disgusting, I know

the president was seeing and addressing the bigger picture of what got them ALL there. not trying to take sides.

demanding someone take your side all the time or they are evil is yes, disgusting. i know.

I’d hope the POTUS and the rest of America would take a very clear strong and definitive side against Nazis on American soil. That transcends politics, or at least it should. Look how Trump attacks other issues and opponents and look how he handled this one. Night and day. There was no need to bring up the good people on both sides. The situation was well past statutes and on to Nazis and a dead girl. But he needed to attack ANTIFA and point the finger and that’s how he did it.

and i would hope people would stop using RACIST and NAZI so casually cause they're "offended" at someone elses not agreeing with them.

anti-fa is a bunch of asswhipes who are out there actively shutting down people from being able to speak their mind and then crying foul when bitch slapped.

 

[Brain357]

Tell that to the dead people. Why does it happen weekly if we don’t have a problem? Our homicide rate is 4-5X higher than countries with strong gun control, that’s a lot of lives.

People die every day what would you say to them?

When it comes to mass shootings I’d say they are really rare when there is strong gun control. Why do you support mass killers?

I don't

Why do you want to take guns away from people who will never commit a murder?

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why do you people always appeal to the ridiculous?

I'm surprised you didn't use a nuclear missile in your example

Next time time formulating am actual counter argument and explain yourself. That’s how debates work

Next time don't use a stupid example to make your point

Well there you go again, coming up empty on making a substantive argument. Let me help. Why is my example stupid? What is false or wrong about what I said?

WHo here is going to bring a fully automatic machine gun to a football game?

No one that's who

Ergo it was a stupid example

The two guys I was speaking to in this thread both said that they feel we have the constitutional right to do being a machine gun to a school. Do you agree with that?

So no it wasn’t a stupid example it was defining the boundaries of where we draw the line in regulation. So where do you stand?

Dear Slade3200
Having a local agreement on school policy within a district is LOCAL.
That's different from FEDERAL REGULATIONS trying to ban or regulate guns for everyone across states and the nation.

Why don't you get that these are different?

Schools can decide democratically on their own if students can give invocations or speeches
referencing things that the local admin can approve or disapprove, or the students can vote on.

Why can't you and other liberals understand that's totally DIFFERENT from
judges or Congress in DC "mandating a policy for the entire nation" where nobody has a say otherwise!

By common sense, schools would not allow weapons that disrupt or threaten to breach the peace in
the classroom and school setting.

Why would you think that "federal legislation or regulation" is needed for something simple
like that which just requires common sense school policies, such as not bringing pets to school
unless approved by the teachers or administration. Does that require Congress to pass federal laws?

This is one area that really separates liberals from conservatives.

Just because a local law or state law on safety or on car insurance is democratically
voted on by people on that level,
suddenly the LIBERAL mind makes a huge leap that this means it's okay for
FEDERAL GOVT to mandate such laws FOR THE ENTIRE NATION.

That's not people voting on it or having a say through their local district reps for their own
district or state.

Going through Congress means 400 million people across 50 states are all
competing to be represented, and that's why the Constitution was set up to
LIMIT what duties and decisions authorized to Federal Govt so it DOESN'T
involve individual rights that should be decided democratically on state and local levels.

Like Duh.

Why don't Liberals get this?
There is a HUGE difference between local policies that only affect that district or
a state at most, vs. nationalized policies that attempt to make ONE LAW for the
entire population across all 50 states through a central Congressional vote.

Can you not grasp the difference in representation that different
issues require that are better decided LOCALLY vs. NATIONALLY?