You don’t need an AR 15 to do any one of those scenarios Fuzz. Any weapon of any kind will do.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You don’t need an AR 15 to do any one of those scenarios Fuzz. Any weapon of any kind will do.
fbi is totally corrupted it is there to selectively prosecute tgose who threaten the dc elites
So how far outside of Chicago do you need to go to buy a gun?
The ban in Chicago is on the sale of firearms in the city. People still own them.
Forget that people shooting up schools and drug gangs battling among themselves aren't exactly the same groups of people and most of the ones the drug gangs are using are stolen so as long as irresponsible gun owners allow their guns to be stolen there will still be an issue. How about we include strict ownership liability? If someone commits a crime with your weapon regardless of how they got it, you are equally guilty of the crime. Think that would make law abiding citizens be more responsible with how they stored and protected their weapons?
Yeah, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Germany, France,...all "Marxist" countries.
There is someone brainwashed here but it isn't me. Looked in the mirror lately?
I guess you've never heard of Socialism. Full commie doesn't happen over night. It's a process. You know, like you want to take our guns one step at a time and think we're too damn stupid to know what's happening.
Maybe you can move to Canada. They could use a party man like you leading one of their social justice tribunals. And you won't have to worry about opposing views like ours since they're shutting down free speech.
Fuzz, I am speaking about red flags directly linking him to a danger to society that were not acted on.
The point of alerting the authorities is to prevent something from happening. How in the hell does that ever occur in the world you’re describing where you seem to think interaction can never prevent something.
We must simply remove all tools anyone can hurt another person with, that’s ridiculous.
What good is alerting the FBI if they aren’t going to even act? Why was the kid not allowed on property with a back pack? What could he carry in a back pack that might be dangerous, gee I wonder. The writing was on the wall, and no one did a GD thing, so let’s blame Trump and the NRA.
Ok, so why do most of these shooters choose AR15s?
The list of weapons for which someone can obtain high capacity magazines is rather limited. As I've already said...sure any gun would do but they are less effective because they can't bring the overwhelming firepower. Let's agree to reduce the amount of firepower available to civilians.
That's one of the dumbest, most absurd, loony suggestions ever.
What if your guns are responsibly locked away in a safe and someone breaks into your home and steals the entire safe? Then what?
Far fetched, you say? This exact scenario just happened to Gronk. You're suggesting he should now be held equally responsible for any and all crimes committed with his stolen gun(s).
What if your guns are responsibly locked away in a safe and someone breaks into your home and steals the entire safe? Then what?
Far fetched, you say? This exact scenario just happened to Gronk. You're suggesting he should now be held equally responsible for any and all crimes committed with his stolen gun(s).
Most of the shooters aren’t choosing AR 15’s.
No, I’m not agreeing to reducing firepower, I’m in favor of treating everyone with decency.
As a Canadian I find it comical that a lot of Americans think single payer healthcare = full blown socialism.
Hey man, they banned guns in tombstone and the Earps and Cowboys still managed to get into a gunfight.
Agreed.
Seems to me the argument is if we make them harder to get, at least we made them harder to get. So? If someone wants a gun, they’re going to get a gun. The internet will see to it if nothing else.
I can make the same “at least” argument regarding armed retired police/military. At least then the shooter would have to worry about return fire.
And I saw an argument about a fire alarm being pulled. What if a guy pulls that alarm and pulls out a butcher knife and just starts stabbing everyone around him? Or if he corners an entire classroom and just goes crazy. Or if he watches YouTube and builds a bomb and sets it off during class change?
I don’t own an AR-15. Don’t have a desire to. But blaming a tool that has to be used by a person for what happens is just terrible logic.
People are the problem. And by people I mean those that commit the act and those that are afraid to call deranged people deranged. Those afraid to offend someone who is clearly crazy. You can sugar coat terms all you want, but sometimes people are beyond therapy and medicine does no good. And if they deranged individual isn’t seeking help, but having help forced upon him... how lokng do you think that’ll last?
One side wants to talk about a tool that can be used to kill people. That’s fine. But we damn sure better be talking about the unstable people that seem to keep getting a pass in these conversations.
Bill, you're obviously can't see the forest for the trees. You obsess about one of many shootings. Do the others not count?
Again, red flags were acted upon just not enough. There are 1000s just like Cruz out there today. You locking them all up? Is the Amazing Kreskin still alive? Maybe he can accurately predict which of the mentally ill will actually snap and should be locked up.
I keep asking this question and you keep avoiding it.
The authorities can only work within the law and with the resources available. Forget the FBI, why didn't the locals do something? How about the family that was his guardian? Knowing what someone did and knowing what someone will do is universes apart. How many mentally ill people are you locking up so you're sure you get the Nickolas Cruz's off the street?
Quit avoiding the question.
This was an interesting article, considering the bias of the author and the fact that it was in the Post..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.1d7c953cb75e
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco October 3, 2017
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns…
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news....
We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
(emphasis added)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.1d7c953cb75e
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco October 3, 2017
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns…
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news....
We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
(emphasis added)
So if I had my gun locked up in a safe in my house and someone breaks in when I'm gone and steals the safe, eventually opens it and commits a crime with said gun, I'm still responsible? Or if I'm legally carrying and someone attacks me from behind, takes my gun, and then commits a crime with it, I'm once again responsible?
You seem to be pushing for nothing short of a gun ban. It won't work. Criminals won't willingly give away their guns nor will they stop committing crimes.
And what happened last week was horrible, but that kid had obvious mental problems that weren't properly addressed. Inability to treat cases like this and the erosion of societal norms and morals have just as much to do with this as access to a gun.
Protesters Try Everything To Keep Fired Google Employee James Damore From Speaking
A protester tried pulling the plug on fired Google employee James Damore and the rest of a panel at Portland State University Saturday by tampering with the audio system.
Non-student protester Heather Clark, whose attempted dismantling of the panel’s sound system resulted in a 10-minute audio outage, received a second degree criminal mischief citation, as well as a two-year campus ban.
Clark told The Fix. “Bottom line, people like James Damore are absolutely not welcome here. We must make that clear.”
A protester tried pulling the plug on fired Google employee James Damore and the rest of a panel at Portland State University Saturday by tampering with the audio system.
Non-student protester Heather Clark, whose attempted dismantling of the panel’s sound system resulted in a 10-minute audio outage, received a second degree criminal mischief citation, as well as a two-year campus ban.
Clark told The Fix. “Bottom line, people like James Damore are absolutely not welcome here. We must make that clear.”
And another from the Post, of all places, where they "fact-check" Marco Rubio. First, note the intro sentence: "A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect." heh. It's almost like they are looking for public statements by Republicans that they can refute.
Note: Second amendment fights aren't really something that gets me worked up. So I'm not advocating anything - other than you can never trust media.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...prevented-by-gun-laws/?utm_term=.6a21c2394003
Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
“None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” Dec. 4, 2015
A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine….
The Pinocchio Test
This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy. But Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Gun-control advocates often point to the experience in other countries that have enacted gun laws that heavily restrict gun ownership; as we have shown, quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., “mass shooting”), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto .
Note: Second amendment fights aren't really something that gets me worked up. So I'm not advocating anything - other than you can never trust media.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...prevented-by-gun-laws/?utm_term=.6a21c2394003
Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws
“None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” Dec. 4, 2015
A colleague pointed out this statement by Marco Rubio as a possible fact check, suggesting that it was almost certainly incorrect. It posed an interesting challenge, given the reams of data to examine….
The Pinocchio Test
This is certainly a depressing chronicle of death and tragedy. But Rubio’s statement stands up to scrutiny — at least for the recent past, as he framed it. Notably, three of the mass shootings took place in California, which already has strong gun laws including a ban on certain weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Gun-control advocates often point to the experience in other countries that have enacted gun laws that heavily restrict gun ownership; as we have shown, quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., “mass shooting”), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto .
That’s about the craziest suggestion I’ve seen yet. Oh hey, my House was broken into (against the law), robbed (against the law) and he happened to ransack where I have my firearm. The gun was then used to murder someone (against the law) or a simple car jacking (against the law).
So let’s punish the guy who didn’t do anything wrong. Brilliant.
Let’s do this with vehicles too. Your truck gets stolen and is used in a heist or involved in a hit and run, you’re responsible. Should have had measures in place to prevent it.
Is this person (who I’ve neber heard of) saying the students and media knew about this shooting beforehand and as such had this all set up already?
Alex Jones is hiring.
Maybe I misinterpreted it, but I took that as they’re being coached to push the gun narrative. But I could have taken that wrong.
Not exactly but the never let a good crisis go to waste crowd have activists waiting to be mobilized. Billions of Soros money will have you a movement ready in minutes.
Because it's always someone else's fault.
I watched more than a few of these stupid HS kids gladly talk about how they all knew Cruz was crazy, and they always joked about how if anyone was going to shoot up the school, he was gonna be the one to do it! "We knew it!". Congrats, maybe YOU should have done something. Nope, it's the federal governments fault!!!!!! Fn pathetic. Now we gotta listen to Hollywood and everybody with their lil hashtag campaigns.
I’m not avoiding any question Fuzz, the local police weren’t warned twice, once within a month by family members. They did absolutely nothing, that is an issue.
We need to change how we deal with mentally ill people. I’ve never mentioned locking mentally ill people up, but I’ll be GD if I’m going to give a pass to authorities when they were specifically warned, as you seem to be.
Here’s an idea on the mentally ill, why don’t we treat it instead of acting like it’s perfectly fu*king normal? Don’t pump kids full of psychotic drugs, or treat them as fragile glass.
I also took it as meaning a bunch of piece of shit adults are using these young kids to push their own agenda.
But on the bright side, as far as we know they haven't sold them off into slavery yet, so this is a step forward for the D party.
But on the bright side, as far as we know they haven't sold them off into slavery yet, so this is a step forward for the D party.
Can someone ask fuzz why is taking guns away from sane law abiding citizens a better solution that locking up mentally ill people?
Locking up the mentally ill would probably make a bigger dent in school shootings than banning guns.
Why get rid of the 2nd Amendment, and not a different Amendment that would actually have an impact?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
That's what you get from that? Far from it, actually. She's implying the students are being coached and used as pawns, after the fact.
By what criteria is Obama even remotely in the top eight of best? Easily top eight worst. Top three worst, imo.
Not sure minimizing in your first post helps end your second post.
- On another note I believe teachers with guns is stupid. However I do believe counselors, VPs, and Prinicipals should absolutely be trained and have access to weapons to protect themselves and what students they can.
What people miss is the deterrent of it being there as an option would temper back the possible thoughts of pulling something so drastic.
Same as not smoking pot in the house when your parents are home.
- Why not ban the reporting of said shootings? Keep it off TV and conceal it as much as possible instead of giving it 24/7 premium coverage creating extra incentive to the crazy persons mindset that just may be considering something so stupid.
“Extremists?” STFU, Joe. These idiots always have a label for anyone who disagrees with them.
You’re not “pro Constitution.” No, you’re an “extremist.”
You’re not “Pro Life” or “anti-murder.” No, you’re “anti choice.”
You’re not pro freedom of religion. No, you’re “anti-LGBT.”
You’re not pro law and order and pro America. No, you’re a “Xenophobe.”
You’re not a conservative. You’re either “Alt right” “far right” or a “Nazi.”
I don't know shit about guns. That's why I don't own one. I don't have the knowledge, information or education to properly handle a gun and I know that. I've shot a gun less than 10 times in my life and they were all supervised under the watch of a licensed professional. The far left seems to think that guns can sprout arms and legs and literally kill people on their own. While the far right thinks they need to pack a grenade launcher in their home in the event that a house burglar comes calling one night. I don't ever think we'll reach the point where all firearms are removed from the general public. A base percentage of our culture is far too passionate about guns to allow that to happen. I have friends with CCLs. I hang out with people who have an entire safe full of hunting rifles and handguns. However I don't know anyone (at least I don't think I do) who owns an automatic, semi-automatic, AR-15 or any sort of assault rifle. At least no one I know who wasn't in the military and trained with one as part of their daily function.
My question to those of you who are knowledgeable about guns and firearms is why would anyone need such a powerful assault rifle? For a licensed gun owner, aside from general appeal to collect such heavy duty weapons, what is the basic need to have an automatic assault rifle available to the general public?
This is not a trolling post, I am genuinely interested to get feedback from people who are more informed than me regarding firearms and why there is a need to have weapons like the AR-15 available to anyone who (ideally) follows the proper steps to obtain one.
My question to those of you who are knowledgeable about guns and firearms is why would anyone need such a powerful assault rifle? For a licensed gun owner, aside from general appeal to collect such heavy duty weapons, what is the basic need to have an automatic assault rifle available to the general public?
This is not a trolling post, I am genuinely interested to get feedback from people who are more informed than me regarding firearms and why there is a need to have weapons like the AR-15 available to anyone who (ideally) follows the proper steps to obtain one.
You're such a partisan douche that you can't even see you're literally having a melt down over people asking to investigate people who post threats while simultaneously offering to trounce all over the 2nd ammendment.
I don't believe this shooter had a 100 round clip nor have they said that many of the recent shooters had one either. Yet you talk about them like it's a fact that every single one has.
You literally just proved the point that any weapon can be used, as Dylan roof, the South Carolina church shooter used a .45 caliber hand gun. The deadliest school shooting in america, va. Tech, used a hand gun. There was a knife attack in China that killed 33.
Rifles(not broken down into type) are used in roughly 300 deaths YEARLY . So gtfoh with that nonsense
Far from it, actually. She's implying the students are being coached and used as pawns, after the fact.
Yeah, I did. I can see the other side now, but I felt like she was saying she can't believe there is any way all of this could have been set up so quickly, implying it was in motion before the shooting ever happened.
I think that's an unnecessary question.
Why do you feel the need to ask it?
Could be any number of reasons you feel that "need".
Bottom line is it has nothing to do with need, and everything to do with your right to ask that question being protected by our Constitution,.
It's called Brady evidence and if this judge is as technical as we are told, failure to disclose this timely will result in dismissal
Similar threads
