Father's Day weekend and Juneteenth in Chicago...
Liberals: SILENCE.
Chicago shootings: 75 shot, 14 fatally.
Liberals: SILENCE.
Mass shooting at Old National Bank in Downtown Louisville
- Thread starter Nightwish84
- Start date
- Status
To fairly answer your probably rhetorical question I think it’s a combination of some anti-gun people having an agenda (which doesn’t help) and a more fair response which is it’s sometimes difficult to draw a distinction.
For example, should a guy who shoots up his family’s picnic and kills 10 that much different than the Louisville Bank shooting?
Yeah we probably need to define what a mass shooting is. But for me, personally, I think of a mass shooting as one that has no real motive other than to cause destruction and chaos. These shootings, any of us can be a victim, the targets are completely random.
However domestic violence issues or gang shootings don't, generally speaking, pose a threat to you or I. But I guess even domestic situations can hit anyone if someone in the family is unstable.
Idk.. I just look at Wikipedias/liberals list of "mass shootings" and I immediately think of how I'd never be a involved in like 90% of these. Of course that other 10% still exists. You could be the unlucky individual who happens to be at the grocery store when an actual mass shooting happens.. but then I think of the fact that an AC unit falling on my head is almost just as likely.
The FBI defines a mass shooting as being when one gunman kills 4 or more people.
FWIW Statistic that have been kept since 2007 show that gang on gang shootings constitute 13% of all gun homicides.
It's similar to the "terrorist" label. Some people consider the Charleston Black Church murderer scum bag a terrorist. But when I think of a terrorist I think of one who is international and politically motivated. But I definitely see their point.
I guess it's important to be a little more specific. But even then it's tough. The dude who shoots up his family vs. the Bank guy who shot up his co-workers is probably more similar than the dude who killed 67+ people in Vegas.
You got a link to the last one? Because I don't see any way that gang shootings are just 13% of homicides. Or rather, what exactly constitutes as a "gang shooting"?
If you look at wikipedias list of "mass shootings", the majority of those are inner city, in impoverish areas. Maybe they are isn't "gang related", but they aren't mass shootings either to me.
Based on annual surveys of local law enforcement agencies, the Center tallied 11,934 "gang-related" homicides in the U.S. from 2007 through 2012. The FBI reported 93,253 total murders during the span. Comparing the numbers, the Center estimated that "gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13% of all homicides annually.
PolitiFact - Are most murders 'gangbangers killing gangbangers,' as Van Cleave says?
A leading gun rights activist says Democratic lawmakers are trying to penalize law-abiding firearm owners for violence c
www.politifact.com
Note: the data only goes through 2012 so these stats could have changed some in the last 10 years.
I believe it... less than 0.3% of people are in gangs. So the fact that it's 13% is a pretty big percentage of murders. Most murders I read about in Louisville are where some scum bag shoots somebody he knows (friend, domestic partner, person he knows pretty well) as opposed to a murder of a rival gang member.
How many murders go unsolved that are highly likely to be gang related and how does that skew the percentage?
OK, so maybe not fully gang-related, but rather "inner city". Either way, these shootings, like the ones posted about Chicago over the weekend, won't ever be a risk to you or I.
Now, innercity crime is another topic for another day.
Now, innercity crime is another topic for another day.
A police officer told me sometime within the last year or so that the majority of shootings in Louisville are gang related. Things have changed dramatically over the past 10 years in this city, so I would believe the 2012 stats are not necessarily applicable.
When a mass shooting occurs, it only amplifies the discussion, but the overall points remain: 1) We're flooded with guns which means you don't have to try too hard to acquire a weapon no matter your background and 2) gun violence and anger are serious issues in our country. I know cole is always going to bump the thread, focusing on Chicago numbers and then follow it up with the same boring jab at liberals, but again, let's say you solve the problems there, what then? Does that begin a chain reaction which leads to mass shootings and gun violence dropping dramatically in CA, TX, FL, KY, and every other state? Probably not. Some want to pretend gun violence begins and ends in one city and unless that one city becomes a utopia, we shouldn't speak on the NATIONAL impact of constant gun violence. It's a childish tactic and doesn't work nationally. Nationally, people just want to feel safe in public again. Next time a mass shooting occurs, go to wherever it happened and start yelling about Chicago and see where that gets you.
That's what happens when you only read the Norton Commons newsletter.
Perhaps "start" with Chicago and see what happens. Since their issue has continued to fester year after year, maybe at least try and do something versus continue to ignore it (that doesn't seem to be working out so well).....but you will wait with baited breath for the next school shooting so the already printed press releases on gun control can be released.
And yes...the liberal faction of this debate is silent whenever you want to discuss the breeding ground for their own ilk.
There are funerals in Chicago this week. Go there and start yelling about mass shootings.
I think the “you don’t have to try hard to acquire a gun” is completely false doing it illegally. Of course you can buy legal guns easily but if you’re saying most people know how to find an illegal gun that’s not true. I can get about any drug I’d want from the streets but I’ve never once seen it been offered to buy a street gun.
Glass shooting.
www.tampabay.com
Dunedin man fired 30 AR-15 rounds at pool cleaner he thought was intruder, sheriff says
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law is applicable to the situation and the man who fired won’t face charges.
^couple things, that dude is an idiot for going and cleaning someone’s pool after dark without a knock on the front door to let them know.
Secondly, why is this chick shooting through her own door? Shouldn’t they have to be attempting to get in or be in the actual house?
Also, if he’s running away and you shoot him in the back shouldn’t there be some law against that? He’s fleeing, you don’t need to kill him as he leaves.
Finally, take some lessons Brody. 30 shots and you didn’t hit him, unloaded the magazine when you literally said you couldn’t see through the blinds? What are so scared of man and you better have a backup mag ready because if a real criminal knew you were out he could come back in and then commit whatever crimes he wanted.
Secondly, why is this chick shooting through her own door? Shouldn’t they have to be attempting to get in or be in the actual house?
Also, if he’s running away and you shoot him in the back shouldn’t there be some law against that? He’s fleeing, you don’t need to kill him as he leaves.
Finally, take some lessons Brody. 30 shots and you didn’t hit him, unloaded the magazine when you literally said you couldn’t see through the blinds? What are so scared of man and you better have a backup mag ready because if a real criminal knew you were out he could come back in and then commit whatever crimes he wanted.
No charges for shooting at your pool guy? I’d be very uncomfortable if I were a UPS or Amazon delivery driver in Florida. I’ve had them show up at 10 pm before.
Yeah but those dudes aren’t in the back of your house that’s fenced in. And they have an obvious truck out front. Most pool guys have a beater ‘97 Tacoma that could be anyone.
The shooting is another in a recent series of cases in Florida and nationwide in which people have been shot or shot at because of mistaken identity, trivial situations or other circumstances that have stirred controversy.
That was the paragraph in that story I was looking for. I don't know if it's social media or what, but some with guns have become much more jumpier to the point that we've had stories recently of someone shooting another person for mistakenly knocking on their door. What is this, The Last Man on Earth and people think there are vampires outside? What happened to ignoring it (if it's someone knocking a few times), having a security system, or cracking the door and saying you've got the wrong house and/or please don't bother me, thank you and have a good night. No law will fix that. That's common sense and unfortunately there are just some people who own guns who probably shouldn't own them, but there's nothing we can do about that. I guess folks just need to be extra careful about any decision they make going forward because some think they're sitting in a saloon in the 1880's waiting for trouble to brew.
That was the paragraph in that story I was looking for. I don't know if it's social media or what, but some with guns have become much more jumpier to the point that we've had stories recently of someone shooting another person for mistakenly knocking on their door. What is this, The Last Man on Earth and people think there are vampires outside? What happened to ignoring it (if it's someone knocking a few times), having a security system, or cracking the door and saying you've got the wrong house and/or please don't bother me, thank you and have a good night. No law will fix that. That's common sense and unfortunately there are just some people who own guns who probably shouldn't own them, but there's nothing we can do about that. I guess folks just need to be extra careful about any decision they make going forward because some think they're sitting in a saloon in the 1880's waiting for trouble to brew.
You left out part 1 of your opinion which led to this fact: people don't trust their local governments/police force/etc....to take care of the crime in their respective areas. Prosecutors being soft on criminals; repeat offenders, and our POTUS/Administration going all out to get the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Of course they may have an itchy trigger finger, but the number of incidents that fit your model are so miniscule in nature that it really is pointless to bring up....unless you're just following the liberal media's narrative.
This sentence accurately describes the transgender in sports issue but you guys still bring it up. The shooting of innocent people who simply are doing their job, using a driveway to turn around, asking for directions, or just having the wrong address happen way more frequently but you think "it really is pointless to bring up." That's the biggest load of hypocritical nonsense I have ever heard. That tin foil hat you wear must be too tight. You might want to loosen it a little.
Women in sports are bringing it up. It’s a simple fix for fairness, but you guys don’t want to fix it.
That doesn't change anything about my post. Shooting of innocent people happens much more often than trans women in sports. The right has latched on to that as some overwhelming issue that is running rampant when it isn't. If they would spend half the time on compromises to help with the ongoing issues of gun violence as they do on transgender in sports, we might actually see some progress. Instead, we get statements like you guys don't want to fix it in regards to the transgender issue when "you guys don't want to fix it" in regards to common sense gun control. You think one is an issue of fairness. I know the other is an issue of life and death.
Sorry I blasted you in the face for knocking on my door. I just don’t trust the government!
Refusal to accept biological science is a gating issue to be a democrat politician. A Supreme Court Justice couldn’t even say what a woman was for fear of being cast aside by the democrats. You have to pretend dozens of genders exist, and support the ability of children to permanently alter their bodies rather than acknowledge gender dysphoria is a mental health issue that needs proper treatment.
How do you expect anyone “on the right” to compromise on “common sense” gun control, when those we would be compromising with don’t even have the common sense to understand men and women are different?
Then come up with your own common sense gun laws instead of just bending over for the NRA. The fact is conservatives trumpet issues that are far less frequent as these all encompassing issues that are running rampant and ruining society while keeping their head so far up their ass they can't (or choose not to see) the issues that really are running rampant. People like you applaud them for it and think you have the moral high ground. You worry about whether Lia Thomas should have been able to race against women and place more attention on that day in and day out when we have 3rd graders who don't make it home from school. There is a world in which legislature should be able to work on both but they latch on to one because ignorant jackasses like yourself latch on to that one and applaud them. Anyone who has a screen name after a convicted sex offender really should avoid acting like they have the moral high ground on any issue. It would have taken you less than 5 minutes to create a new account or change your name. You made the decision not to which tells me all I need to know about you. Are tin foil hats given out to you guys or do you have to make your own?
Perfect example of why there will be no “compromise.”
I’ve given my common sense laws to reduce violence in schools - ban everyone under the age of 18 from social media and the major tech platforms.
Every time a jurisdiction passes a law banning drag shows in schools or banning life altering surgeries for mentally undeveloped children, one side yells about the other side focusing on issues that don’t actually exist. But you guys sure get pissed about bans on things you claim don’t exist.
Seems like we could all agree school libraries shouldn’t have books that are too vulgar to read on the evening news, and if a grown man wants to dress as a woman and read books to kids in a school library he should be locked up, etc. But unfortunately we don’t agree.
So if we can’t even agree on those issues, which seem as common sense as common sense can get, then no one is going to engage with you in a discussion about limiting one of our fundamental rights the forefathers thought was so important they explicitly protected it from government intrusion in the bill of rights. Especially when all of the “common sense” gun control proposals are not “common sense” at all and would be ineffective at stopping most of the headline shootings you guys care about (as opposed to the vast majority of the gun violence in this country which is politically inconvenient so you choose to ignore it).
There happens to be an easy fix to the one obvious problem and there is not an easy fix to the other. That is one reason your passive aggressive analogy does not work.
You continue to spew nonsense and anything but common sense. Why is what anyone wears a reason to be locked up? If someone is covered up whether it be by pants, shorts, skirt, whatever there is absolutely nothing wrong with them being in public including a library reading books. There isn't anything inherently dangerous about that. Your side just wants to make it so.
If you want to ban "vulgar" books, fine. I assume you include the bible in that vulgarity as there are plenty of passages in it that can't be read on the news. There are laws in place regarding gun ownership. If those laws, don't infringe on the right to bear arms then additional laws such as enhanced background checks and waiting periods won't infringe on them either. That wasn't even my point though. My point is the hypocrisy to say that shootings like the pool cleaner don't happen enough to even be a consideration when those shootings happen far more often than trans women competing in sports and that gets all of your consideration. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
Last edited:
There isn't anything passive aggressive about my approach. You and your ilk are hypocrites that latch on to the subject of the week as if it is some sort of badge of honor while overlooking problems that will be here long after your flavor of the week is gone.
Last edited:
I know you’re trying to argue against a straw man, but I said if a man wants to dress as a woman and read books to kids in a school library, he should be locked up. Consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want. But if you want to satisfy some weird fetish by dressing as a woman and reading books to kids, you need to be kept far away from kids.
If you want to remove the Bible from public schools libraries, go for it. I’m not really a biblical scholar, but don’t know what vulgarities are in it that couldn’t be on the evening news. Obviously if it’s something like teaching oral sex, it shouldn’t be in a kindergarten library.
The trans issues aren’t front and center just because of men competing against women in sports. It’s all of your weird assaults on children and childhood, refusal to accept scientific facts, desire to have men competing against women in sports, etc. all taken together. It’s disingenuous to say it’s not occurring in the country, and occurring less than random unprovoked shootings.
And the biggest issue I have is all your weird trans shit is just a symptom of the mental health issues kids and young adults are suffering in this country. Yet you want to act like it doesn’t exist, then focus on “common sense gun control” and not common sense mental health care each time a lunatic shoots up a school.
You guys still keeping that trans shooter’s manifesto suppressed?
What makes him "dress as a woman"? Is it because he chooses to wear a skirt? What about a kilt? Is there a difference between the two? What if he wears a skirt but calls it a kilt? Is that better? What about make up? High heels? Every single one of those things were originally "mens" wear in history. I will repeat there is nothing inherently dangerous or evil about wearing something that fully covers you and reading to children. It isn't grooming. It isn't indoctrination. It is none of those things. The ontly thing it does is bring your preconceived notions and biases about what is or isn't mens wear. I am guessing you freaked out when your son (if you have one) wanted to play with a doll as a child. These biases about what is or isn't right for men is a huge part of the issue with society today. Wearing a skirt as a guy doesn't have to be sexual yet you want to make it sexual at all times. That is your problem not the person who is going about their life and chose to wear a skirt.
Your entire argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors because you know how big of a hypocrite you are being. Deflect all you want but it changes nothing. You want to call me strawman yet you have enough straw to be cast as the scarecrow in the local production of the Wizard of Oz.
lol strawman
Most people just try and deny they’re making a strawman argument, but aren’t completely ignorant to the concept and think someone is calling them a man made of straw.
You aren’t going to convince me a man dressing in drag and reading books to school children is done for any other reason than to satisfy some weird sexual fetish. Just leave the goddam kids alone.
That’s a you problem based your preconceived biases. That doesn’t mean that is what they are doing. Do you feel the same way about a guy reading to kids wearing a kilt? I’ll ask again. What’s the difference?
I’m not surprised you missed the point of the scarecrow reference. Makes sense since he didn’t have a brain and you don’t appear to either. Just another similarity straw man.
If it’s just some random guy who enjoys wearing kilts while reading to children, yes I feel the same way.
I “missed the point” of your scarecrow reference because I laughed at the fact you didn’t know what a strawman argument was, you thought I called you a strawman, then you ran with that misunderstanding into a weak attempt at an insult which was in fact a self own.
“It’s definitely not happening at all anywhere, but here’s 10,000 words defending men dressing in drag and reading to schools children.”
On the one hand I do agree the issues get more press than warranted. On the other hand, I hope the issues stay at the forefront, because it’s pretty easy to identify lunatics and people who should be kept away from children by asking them if they think men should be able to dress in drag and read books in elementary schools.
If you think men should dress in drag and read story books to young kids in schools, we will very likely not agree on anything at all. There’s no sense in even discussing gun control if you are that insane.
On the one hand I do agree the issues get more press than warranted. On the other hand, I hope the issues stay at the forefront, because it’s pretty easy to identify lunatics and people who should be kept away from children by asking them if they think men should be able to dress in drag and read books in elementary schools.
If you think men should dress in drag and read story books to young kids in schools, we will very likely not agree on anything at all. There’s no sense in even discussing gun control if you are that insane.
I know exactly what a strawman argument is. You on the other hand don't understand allegory as that was what calling you the scarecrow was. You call everyone else's arguments strawman when that is all you have. Hence, the you have more straw than anyone statement.
Also, if you think a kilt is inappropriate than you are right that there is no need to talk about it. You finding a kilt inappropriate is laughable. Let me guess though. You would have no issue if a woman in a bikini was reading to kids. What about a woman in a mini skirt or a low cut top? Is that ok?
- Status
