SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> On mass killing
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1565111685

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 08/06/19 at 10:14:45

Title: On mass killing
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/06/19 at 10:14:45

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/mass_shootings_the_elephant_in_the_room.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/mass_shootings_the_elephant_in_the_room.html

Let's see who picks out the one sentence that can be misconstrued and tries to use it..

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/06/19 at 20:07:51

I agree that even though the Levin and Madfis model is 10 years old and could use some updating it is a more accurate way of dealing with mass murder than just taking away certain gun types.

I do however think that fatality rate per minute needs to be looked at. Certain methods kill faster, and reducing access to those methods, (for instance I can't go to Wal-Mart and buy grenades and C-4) will be moderately beneficial in some cases.

Also by acknowledging that fatality rate per minute is a concern we can attempt to have productive conversations instead of childish back and forth about who can create the more ridiculous analogy about gun control.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/06/19 at 22:30:43

We need more people carrying guns.
Not fewer.
Punishing the law abiding in an effort to protect from crazies and criminals doesn't make sense.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/19 at 05:32:02

233C3A3D20271626162E3C307B490 wrote:

We need more people carrying guns.
Not fewer.

Again, that inane attitude has been disproven this week.

Punishing the law abiding in an effort to protect from crazies and criminals doesn't make sense.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/07/19 at 07:20:07

746A656469746F72000 wrote:

[quote author=233C3A3D20271626162E3C307B490 link=1565111685/0#2 date=1565155843]We need more people carrying guns.
Not fewer.

Again, that inane attitude has been disproven this week.

Punishing the law abiding in an effort to protect from crazies and criminals doesn't make sense.

[/quote]

Ohhh, do explain..

You never answered my question

If you were in the immediate proximity of someone who just popped up and started shooting, would you wish you had a gun?

http://https://s3.amazonaws.com/lrc-cdn/assets/2019/08/12310.jpg

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/19 at 08:12:40

4D5254534E4978487840525E15270 wrote:

[quote author=746A656469746F72000 link=1565111685/0#3 date=1565181122][quote author=233C3A3D20271626162E3C307B490 link=1565111685/0#2 date=1565155843]We need more people carrying guns.
Not fewer.

Again, that inane attitude has been disproven this week.

Punishing the law abiding in an effort to protect from crazies and criminals doesn't make sense.

[/quote]

Ohhh, do explain..

You never answered my question

If you were in the immediate proximity of someone who just popped up and started shooting, would you wish you had a gun?

That question is sad in it's own right. I don't live in fear.

And again, the event in Dayton disproves your theory. The shooter was engaged in 30 seconds.

End of debate.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/lrc-cdn/assets/2019/08/12310.jpg
[/quote]

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/07/19 at 08:20:17

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by oldNslow on 08/07/19 at 08:33:33

6D4D4F475A4D280 wrote:

I feel it's a valid question that for some reason people aren't answering.

If you had the option of having a firearm on your person when someone starts shooting people, would you take it?

In the event that you are in public and someone is shooting people, and there is a loaded functioning firearm within your reach, would you use it?

Is there a situation where you would choose to not defend yourself or others if the appropriate methods of self-defense were available to you?

Yes, to all three questions, depending on the particular circumstances of the incident and my assessment of what action was appropriate in that situation, both for my own safety and the safety of others.

[quote] Is there a situation where you would choose to not defend yourself...

Only if I was sure I could extricate myself from the situation without having to confront the threat. The only 100% sure way of surviving a gunfight is not to get in one in the first place.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Serowbot on 08/07/19 at 08:38:06

If a guy in room is firing 100 bullets a minute,... am I going to pick up a gun and make myself the conspicuous threat to him?...
That fan of bullets will find focus on me.

Maybe I'll let Mn or Jog do it. ;D

If he turns his back or stops to reload, maybe I would,... but throwing a chair, and tackling him might be just as effective at that point.

In the Giffords shooting,.. there was a man with a loaded gun in the crowd. He never drew it. There was no opportunity or clear shot.
The shooter was subdued by someone grabbing the magazine when he tried to reload. Others then tackled and restrained him.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/19 at 08:44:46

0121232B3621440 wrote:

Eegore - I guess my point is being missed.

Of course I'd want a gun or something to protect myself. Hell, I'd love an Ironman suit! I don't think anyone would not want to protect themselves.

But the question itself is folly. If someone came up to you in a Yugo and challenged you to a race for a million dollars, wouldn't you want the faster car? If someone pushed you off a boat in the middle of a lake, wouldn't you want to know how to swim? Well, yeah duh. But how many times would these things happen in your life?

It's just a lame attempt to show how "we need more guns" is somehow a viable answer to the mass shootings in this country.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by WebsterMark on 08/07/19 at 09:14:51

7365726F77626F74000 wrote:

The nonsense you talk in an attempt to prove a losing point is astounding....

People with guns occasionally stop violent men with gun. It happens. If you were in that Walmart and he's heading your way, you'd sure what the opportunity.

I'm not necessarily in favor of encouraging a large percentage of the population to carry. But I'm not in favor of forbidding reasonable steps to allow those who want to. Last year I was in Houston in a bar with our Texas distributors. Probably 6 or 7 men in the group. All were carrying. Everyone single one. All those men are solid, well respected business men who own companies, have families and employees they're responsible for. I have zero problem with those guys carrying.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by WebsterMark on 08/07/19 at 09:31:02

I'm leaning this way after these two shootings.

1) I'm okay with working on some type of national database where high risk people are listed and must go through some type of review before purchasing a firearms. Now three are a lot of inherent problems with that, but if you read the column the Dayton shooter's girlfriend wrote or the writings the El Paso shooter left, you'd like to think there were opportunities to intercede. Same with Parkland High School kid. There were numerous opportunities with him. Note: there are 300 million ways around that list given that's how many guns are in the country now, but it's possible it will slow down a nutjob buying a gun.

2) I'd encourage schools to ask for teachers to volunteer to go through training and carry. It would be a good goal to have several teachers in each school who carry and regularly re-train themselves.

3) A national conceal and carry procedure. I don't know why we can't train local law enforcement to conduct classes and basic training for those who want to carry. Not sure how this next part would be done, but the government can't keep a list of who carries.

That's a start.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Serowbot on 08/07/19 at 09:39:38

0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:

That's a start.

That's the same start Republicans have proposed after every shooting.
Basically,... more good guys with guns.

Hell of a compromise.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by WebsterMark on 08/07/19 at 09:43:46

Okay then. If you think getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is a great idea because it's not protecting us at all, I'd suggest getting rid of the 4th Amendment.

Let Uncle Sam just search houses, stop people at random, read emails etc..... Think of all the crime they'd stop. They could have read the El Paso shooter's writings before he left for El Paso and pulled him over on the highway. They could have read the text and emails between the Dayton shooter and his girlfriend and figured something was up and stopped him.

If you really want to stop killings, change the 4th Amendment.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Fast 650 on 08/07/19 at 10:01:36

There is one thing that keeps getting overlooked in most of the "need more guns" and "outlaw all guns" discussions, and that is "why do these shootings happen in the first place?"

Even if all firearms were banned it still wouldn't stop these people. They will simply find something else to use as a weapon instead.

What we should be looking at is why are these people deciding to inflict harm to others, and how do we stop that from happening.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by WebsterMark on 08/07/19 at 10:19:47

One theory I have Fast 650 (is that a contradiction in terms?...) is the same basic mechanism that creates suicides can create mass shootings.

If you read what the El Paso shooter left and what the Dayton shooter's girlfriend wrote, they both contain suicidal thoughts.

In once case, those in such great depths of despair lash out at themselves, in another case, they lash out at others. But both have similar root causes, absolute despair.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/07/19 at 10:26:08

6545474F5245200 wrote:

"...reducing access to those methods, (for instance I can't go to Wal-Mart and buy grenades and C-4) ..."

Should access to, Fertilizer, Diesel Fuel, and BBQ LP gas tanks, (just to name a few), also be restricted ?

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/07/19 at 10:34:33

142621303726310E223128430 wrote:
Okay then. If you think getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is a great idea because it's not protecting us at all, I'd suggest getting rid of the 4th Amendment. ..."

I believe, if the 2nd goes gown down, very shortly after will be the 1st, then the 4th.
After that, one by one, they will be modified to say nothing, or be eliminated.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Serowbot on 08/07/19 at 10:36:09

I think the FBI was alerted to the fertilizer purchase in the McVie bombing. IIRC...

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/19 at 10:55:03

75566B484A51565F380 wrote:

[quote author=6545474F5245200 link=1565111685/0#1 date=1565147271] "...reducing access to those methods, (for instance I can't go to Wal-Mart and buy grenades and C-4) ..."

Should access to, Fertilizer, Diesel Fuel, and BBQ LP gas tanks, (just to name a few), also be restricted ?[/quote]

No, but thanks to mcveigh, there is now a conscious effort to monitor those types of purchases.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/07/19 at 11:21:06

160807060B160D10620 wrote:

No, but thanks to mcveigh, there is now a conscious effort to monitor those types of purchases.

Please explain how, and where that is happening ?

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/19 at 11:28:54

1635082B2932353C5B0 wrote:

[quote author=160807060B160D10620 link=1565111685/15#19 date=1565200503]No, but thanks to mcveigh, there is now a conscious effort to monitor those types of purchases.

Please explain how, and where that is happening ?
[/quote]

With the ATF and the manufacturers and resellers.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/ammonium-nitrate-security

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/07/19 at 11:35:35

405E51505D405B46340 wrote:

[quote author=1635082B2932353C5B0 link=1565111685/15#20 date=1565202066][quote author=160807060B160D10620 link=1565111685/15#19 date=1565200503]No, but thanks to mcveigh, there is now a conscious effort to monitor those types of purchases.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/07/19 at 11:42:13

50734E6D6F74737A1D0 wrote:

[quote author=405E51505D405B46340 link=1565111685/15#21 date=1565202534][quote author=1635082B2932353C5B0 link=1565111685/15#20 date=1565202066][quote author=160807060B160D10620 link=1565111685/15#19 date=1565200503]No, but thanks to mcveigh, there is now a conscious effort to monitor those types of purchases.

Please explain how, and where that is happening ?
[/quote]
With the ATF and the manufacturers and resellers.
[/quote]
The link you posted says:
"...This voluntary program..."

Again, very appropriate to post what you say:
"I can say pretty much anything I want"

[/quote]

Hmmm... did I say there was a law?

Nope.

I said that there was a "conscious effort".

So, what are you complaining about?

And why do you keep using that quote out of context? (no need to answer - it's the same reason you don't know how to use the proper spelling of "there").

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/07/19 at 13:28:52

"Should access to, Fertilizer, Diesel Fuel, and BBQ LP gas tanks, (just to name a few), also be restricted ? "

Yes. I have supported all Ammonia Nitrate purchase/carry/distribution proposals that I have come across. The methods today to document and track this stuff is so available I see no reason to not track it.

I know, should pressure cookers also be restricted because of the Boston Bomber? No. There just isn't enough suicidal idiots out there making those bombs yet.

"I believe, if the 2nd goes gown down, very shortly after will be the 1st, then the 4th.
After that, one by one, they will be modified to say nothing, or be eliminated."

I will believe that when people start shooting law enforcement for searching their vehicles without probable cause, or shooting their congressmen for letting the Net Neutrality protections fail. I do not believe law enforcement follow the 4th out of fear that the community will rise up and start killing the Police.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Serowbot on 08/07/19 at 14:29:40

Bombs are another false equivalence comparison with assault weapons...

Building a bomb is risky,
...many people blow themselves up trying to make them...
...bombs take time to assemble, many are caught during that time...
...bombs take knowledge,.. many are caught trying to get information
...bombs fail to work... many are caught when they fail

Assault weapons work too well...
...any idiot can pull that trigger and kill and maim scores of innocent people. It's just too easy.
The danger is in the ease of accessibility and use.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/07/19 at 16:25:55

You're unteachable.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/11/19 at 15:34:14

5C7C7E766B7C190 wrote:

I do not believe law enforcement follow the 4th out of fear that the community will rise up and start killing the Police.

I agree.
I believe that the police today follow the 4th, not because they are afraid that someone will shoot them.

They follow the 4th, because they, KNOW, if they do not.
They will not have A Job, A House, A Car, A Bank account, etc.

And the 4th is their, because the 2nd is their.
Take away the 2nd, No 1st or 4th, VERY soon after.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/11/19 at 19:51:06

"And the 4th is their, because the 2nd is their.
Take away the 2nd, No 1st or 4th, VERY soon after."

If the Police or Government is not concerned about US citizens murdering them for violating the 4th, then how is the 2nd keeping the 4th in practice?

If the Government violates someone's rights, or many, those people are not marching into Capital Buildings and killing the Congressmen.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/12/19 at 08:46:09

7F5F5D55485F3A0 wrote:

If the Police or Government is not concerned about US citizens murdering them for violating the 4th, then how is the 2nd keeping the 4th in practice?

Simply, because the 2nd, keeps the first, which keeps the 4th, (and all the rest)
Because the 1st, allows a person to say:
"Hea, that Policeman/woman, broke into my house and took my money"

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/12/19 at 11:36:50

"Simply, because the 2nd, keeps the first, which keeps the 4th, (and all the rest)
Because the 1st, allows a person to say:
"Hea, that Policeman/woman, broke into my house and took my money""

So the Government is maintaining the 1st Amendment exclusively because if they don't people will use personal firearms to maintain the 1st?

I'm not sure how that works. I guess the logic is if all national ISP's are shut down and the power is cut they will just march to DC with their shotguns, AKs and ARs kill some Congressmen and the power will just come back on.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/12/19 at 12:06:29

7656545C4156330 wrote:

So the Government is maintaining the 1st Amendment

Did you mean to say:
"So the People are maintaining the 1st Amendment "

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Serowbot on 08/12/19 at 13:29:49

So that's why countries without guns don't have a free press... ::)

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/12/19 at 13:37:53

"Did you mean to say:
"So the People are maintaining the 1st Amendment ""

No. You said that.

I am saying the Government is maintaining, as in adhering to, keeping up with, abiding by, procuring resources to continue, keeping, doing.

They are doing that because citizens have personal firearms?

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by MnSpring on 08/12/19 at 14:51:57

48686A627F680D0 wrote:

I am saying the Government is maintaining, ... ... ... ... ...

In this Nation, the Government IS the People/Citizens.
I believe that was the Goal, for the last 244 years, in this Country.

The Government, in many other countries, control their,'subjects'.

That original goal which has lasted 244 years,
and currently is still this Countries goal,
could well change, with a Socialist Government in charge.

And the more people that are,
not taught, (on purpose),
that the Citizens of the US, ARE the government.
The easier this Nation will turn totally Socialistic.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by Eegore on 08/12/19 at 15:24:49

I'm familiar with how and what our Government is.

I am willing to admit however that the average citizen no longer has the same degree of control as they did 244 years ago. You know, before nuclear warheads, biological weaponry, global trade through electronic transfer.

Maybe this will help:

I don't think the Government, made of elected officials representing the People of the US, a process in place for 244 years, is maintaining, adhering to, conduct itself to the procurement of, and implementing the 1st amendment because the non-elected US Citizen has privately owned unregistered firearms and ammunition conducive to the effective use of said personal firearms.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/12/19 at 15:27:01

And you won't be able to see how they are connected until it's too late.

Title: Re: On mass killing
Post by T And T Garage on 08/12/19 at 15:34:18

1D3D3F372A3D580 wrote:

Playing off what I highlighted in blue above (sorry, it's a tangent);

The typical citizen in the US today, has virtually no voice except at the voting booth. However, that's being manipulated by barrages false/misleading ads paid for by PACs.

Very few (all of which are Democratic Socialists) don't accept PAC money/dark money.

If we were to get more of that mentality in Congress, things would change for the better. I'm not just saying democrats either. Republicans should adopt that model as well.

Look to the Ford/Carter election and how those campaigns were financed.