Crime Maine shooting - 18 dead

[Larzon]

LOL @ comparing voting or freedom of speech to something that causes 600 mass shootings a year. What gigantic a strawman.

Just accept it's a right you don't need, but that you want regardless of it's consequences. Why can't pro-guns just say "I love my guns, I love my traditions and if people have to die because of it, so be it"? That seems a lot more honest than playing the oppressed, which is ridiculous.

Most developed countries have strict gun laws. And countries like Switzerland are considered freer than the US when it comes to civil rights.

Almost every western nation has more freedom. Healthcare and student loans alone rule out the US as a decent place to live. Most the country to stuck in a cycle of debt

 

[oldshadow]

Why did Donny Man Tits overturn Obama's background checks for mentally unstable people law?

You mean the one that even the ALCU wanted stopped because of how it was written. The same ALCU that will not defend the 2nd amendment.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-gun-mentally-ill-rule-1.4538963

 

[fingercuffs]

Which particular law?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

 

[oldshadow]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ng-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

See above.

 

[spamking]

Because of lack of strict gun laws.

Spoken like someone who has now clue what our laws actually are as it relates to firearms.

 

[spamking]

False equivalency fallacy.

You just described your chain of posts on here.

 

[spamking]

Is that an opinion or a fact?

Feel free to prove it wrong . . .

 

[spamking]

I think the actual stat is about 10 % of mass shootings take place in gun free zones lol

Every high profile shooting that folks use to push gun control happened in a gun free zone.

 

[spamking]

We need to be specific about what we're talking about here in terms of crime. This incident was a mass shooting, and most of the debate and news coverage when it comes to shooting is about mass shootings. When we talk about mass shootings (where 4 or more are murdered) with gangs, we're not looking at the same factors because they don't have the same motivations, so the method to stop them is different.

The gun control folks don't care about specifics. If they did, this entire conversation (we have as a society) would be different.

An armed populace can act as a deterrent when we're talking about crimes where the criminal actually wants to live and intends on getting away. If we're talking about robberies, home invasions, or a drunk attacking you and your family--yes, a gun is a deterrent.
It is not a deterrent, meaning, it does not dissuade someone from killing people if they're only goal is to kill as many people as they can and then either kill themselves, or have a death by cop suicide. When we're talking about mass shootings, what you're talking about is just how to minimize casualties, but it does not to deter someone that doesn't care about their life. There is always going to be some soft target, or a way to catch people off guard if the goal is just to murder.

I never said that there wouldn't still be murders. I'm saying that regardless of where they happen, armed resistance can dissuade all but the most determined criminal most of the time.

The gun culture that I am talking about is people that think a gun is a toy, or a tool to be used to solve a problem and intimidate others. This whole "Fuck around and find out" culture that gives a lot of guys fake confidence and dares people to try them. Showing up to protests with guns as a means to intimidate instead of using words and debate to get your points across.

Those people are complete tools and while might be a legal gun owner aren't the cream of the crop by any means. If showing up at a protest with a gun influences the situation, then why don't you see that allowing competent people to carry in these stupid gun free zones would as well?

A person that recognizes the danger that a gun has should also recognize the importance of training and competence---but that recognition gets completely ignored because of these delusions about them one day having to fight aliens, zombies, or the US military when it turns communist.

Really? Those nut jobs usually form their own militias and get put on some watchlist.

It wouldn't be something that happened over night. Culture takes time to change. It's not just an issue with training anyways so that's not going to be the magic fix. But generally speaking, people that have to go through more steps are proving their competence and responsibility in the process.

Let's be real here . . . there are multiple groups with their own "gun culture" that you're referring to. Some might change and become more responsible and others won't even consider it.

Let's not pretend as if this is just about "rights". Weaponry is a very particular thing we're talking about that extends past the individual. This isn't like voting or speech. We're talking about dangerous weapons that can be turned on the public. The idea that it violates your rights to check your competency with a weapon that you want to bring out to the public is just absurd to me.

Would you not agree that more people have died due to our votes? So you're okay if we check competency before folks are allowed to vote? Or if we required them to get a voter ID?

You're all for selective accountability it seems.

Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.

I'm all for penalizing people that break the law, but I think it is equally, if not more important to not give them obvious openings to harm people in the first place.

This is exactly what I'm referring to when I say lose the gun free zones and if they must exist in some locations provide better, hardened security.

I'm not against gun ownership, I'm against irresponsible gun ownership, and "trust me, bro, I'm responsible" isn't a workable system in a country with hundreds of million people when we're talking about something that has the potential to cause so much destruction in that brief a time period.

I'm against irresponsible people in general . . . whether it's gun ownership, driving, having a kid or voting. The latter having the potential to cause much more long-term destruction.

I think you misunderstood my last point. I'm not saying you or anyone else WANTS to be in a mass shooting, or wants a chance to shoot other people. I am saying that you are putting the responsibility of your want to own certain guns on society, and leaving none for the gun holders. You don't want the responsibility of proving your competence to have a dangerous weapon in public, but you want the public to instead "be responsible" by buying their own weapons to protect themselves from would-be mass shooters.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. I like many others have completed the required training and obtained the state issued permits to carry. If the public is responsible for buying their own weapons they become gun holders.

And again, this doesn't even address the problem. More guns is more bullets flying, and that's supposed to be safer?

People don't want to address the mental health aspect for some reason. People don't want to point out the actual demographics involved in gun violence. We as individuals can only address our own issues and hopefully contribute to addressing them on a larger scale.

You're talking about YOUR individual safety and YOUR individual chance to survive, it might be better for you, but it isn't better for society. At the end of the day, this isn't about safety for you, that's not as important to you as your "right" to have the gun. I think that's where part of the disconnect is on some of these debates is that the priorities aren't the same.

Yeah, you are completely disconnected with what I've said and my stance on this issue.

 

[spamking]

Again, that's why the argument doesn't move forward and nothing changes because it seems that the ONLY solution to gun violence in your mind is more guns and more gun zones.
You're not for amending the constitution to change the law, so what's the point? If all 3 branches of the government got on board to amend the constitution to include RESPONSIBILITY/common sense rules to go along with the right to bear arms, we would see a bunch of gun nuts talking about "Come and get em"

I've never said that was my only solution dude. I've mentioned several other pieces to this very large puzzle.

 

[Siver!]

Every high profile shooting that folks use to push gun control happened in a gun free zone.

Lewiston is a gun free zone?

 

[spamking]

Lewiston is a gun free zone?

The bowling alley where the shooting occurred has a sign at the entrance asking patrons to leave their firearms in their vehicle and not bring them into the business.

 

[floivanus]

Why did Donny Man Tits overturn Obama's background checks for mentally unstable people law?

You know that’s been law since 1968 right? You know that expanded the existing law and many groups were against it, cuz even if you had a family member helping you with your financial planning it would count as a “mental defect” and disqualify you from ownership.

Hell, the EXISTING law since 1968 would likely be decided to be unconstitutional by the Bruen standard today.

The big problem and the answer lies in repeat offenders and the litany of spree shooters that were “known” to various law enforcement agencies who failed to act of let them off gently; this Maine shooter is yet another in a LONG line who made articulate threats of shooting up a location and threatening people with zero repercussions. That falls under “true threats” and easily could’ve been acted on, but wasn’t and somehow the blame gets passed onto an object.

 

[Siver!]

The bowling alley where the shooting occurred has a sign at the entrance asking patrons to leave their firearms in their vehicle and not bring them into the business.

I mean... That's kind of a ridiculous argument, but whatever.

 

[Seano]

Continue...

You know the answer, its why your finger is hovering over the report button.

 

[spamking]

I mean... That's kind of a ridiculous argument, but whatever.

What are you talking about? Gun free zones are the target of choice for these high profile mass shootings.

 

[Zazen]

What are you talking about? Gun free zones are the target of choice for these high profile mass shootings.

We’d be better off having every citizen strapped at all times? You’re naive if you think this. Even in places where people are carrying there’s very rarely a good guy with a gun. The person planning the attack has a huge advantage which is the element of surprise. Most people freeze up during a shooting and go into flight mode. You watch too many action movies. Real life isn’t that way

 

[spamking]

We’d be better off having every citizen strapped at all times? You’re naive if you think this. Even in places where people are carrying there’s very rarely a good guy with a gun. The person planning the attack has a huge advantage which is the element of surprise. Most people freeze up during a shooting and go into flight mode. You watch too many action movies. Real life isn’t that way

Thanks for completely making up stuff I didn't say.

This has nothing to do with action movies dude. Let me make this as crystal clear as I can for you.

• Gun free zones need to go away. If they're government/state controlled locations that need that designation for whatever reason they need to provide adequate security to deal with physical threats.
• Citizens who can legally carry should be given the OPPORTUNITY to do so in locations such as this bowling alley.
• Physical security is a known deterrent for all by the most determined criminals.
• Feel free to check out r/dgu on Reddit for real life examples of people not freezing up.

 

[Zazen]

Thanks for completely making up stuff I didn't say.

This has nothing to do with action movies dude. Let me make this as crystal clear as I can for you.

• Gun free zones need to go away. If they're government/state controlled locations that need that designation for whatever reason they need to provide adequate security to deal with physical threats.
• Citizens who can legally carry should be given the OPPORTUNITY to do so in locations such as this bowling alley.
• Physical security is a known deterrent for all by the most determined criminals.
• Feel free to check out r/dgu on Reddit for real life examples of people not freezing up.

We’d still have more gun deaths this way. Security and police didn’t stop that school shooting a couple years back. But let’s imagine it stops more than half of mass shootings. You can’t ignore that most gun deaths don’t even come from mass shootings. The more guns there are the more deaths there are. Families who own guns are more likely to be involved in homicide or suicide. You overestimate peoples’ ability to keep their cool. I don’t want to live in s county where every heated argument is solved with someone waving a gun in front of my face. We need some gun reform

 

[650lb Sumo]

What are you talking about? Gun free zones are the target of choice for these high profile mass shootings.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...un-lobby-perpetuates-following-mass-shootings

I realise it's counterproductive to engage religious people with logic, I'm just curious what the answer will be: If gunmen pick gunfree zones, why don't they pick say, Ireland or Italy or other similar countries? After all, criminals don't follow laws, so there's no point in having them. That's why there are all the napalm helicopter attacks going on, as napalm helicopters are banned. Only a good guy with a napalm helicopter stops a bad guy with a napalm helicopter! Also the government has them, so the Well Regulated Militia needs them too, to prevent tyranny. As we know as soon as you heavily restrict guns Pol Pot comes and puts everyone in extermination camps, as has happened in the UK and New Zealand.