Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)


The Sisko

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CobraCommander said:

That’s nice. Won’t bring back those kids though. More thoughts and prayers I guess.

 

As a side note has anyone living in DC noticed the flags are constantly half mast? When I was a kid it seemed like it was rare now it’s all the time.


wrote this a few years ago, maybe after Sandy Hook..

 

Mast Tragedy

The loss of 
a raised flag
at full mast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hooper said:

 

A big reason we have a lot of police shootings is because cops know so many people are armed and are understandably worried about this. I know I would be. 

 

Guns are the root cause of so many of our problems.

 

 

 

 

Guns are the not root cause, money is. Money is why we don't have gun control reforms, it's why we don't have climate change action, it's why big corporations get away with whatever they want. The money flows into the pockets of politicians and their re-election campaigns. If the gun lobby couldn't give money, there would be a gun control laws immediately. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of these incidents are of young kids and/or people who obviously had warning signs. So one solution might be making insurance a requirement for owning/operating a gun, and then maybe the free market will sort it out and limit the damage at least.

Edited by DCSaints_fan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 


Man traps triggered by trip wires set off by loud bangs and the sound of breaking… in a school.  Has this man never been to a school?  You’d end up with trapped random children and school employees.  And all this for the low low cost of an absolute fortune.  Plus maintenance.  These people are insane.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Alot of these incidents are of young kids and/or people who obviously had warning signs. So one solution might be making insurance a requirement for owning/operating a gun, and then maybe the free market will sort it out and limit the damage at least.

 

I don't really think this would do much. If someone was intent of committing one of these acts, they could buy everything a week before and spend almost nothing on the insurance part. Plus, it just punishes poor people. 

 

At this point, only old school six shooters and hunting rifles/shotguns should be available to buy. Plus, a person can only legally by one hand gun. People could still defend themselves, go hunting and shoot at targets. Guns aren't necessary for anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Destino said:


Man traps triggered by trip wires set off by loud bangs and the sound of breaking… in a school.  Has this man never been to a school?  You’d end up with trapped random children and school employees.  And all this for the low low cost of an absolute fortune.  Plus maintenance.  These people are insane.

It all makes sense when you realize that after this many years, you have to come up with something new 

 

first it was mental health

 

at some point it was arm our teachers

 

now it’s booby trap the schools.

 

And for the record I don’t care what we do but I’d like to see us start doing something. Anything. I support the 2nd amendment. I just don’t think every single option is in violation of it. 

Edited by tshile
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bloodytusk said:

Aye, just because he was not successful does not mean he didnt buy people a couple seconds to run. 

 

The most likely result of having random untrained teachers in there with guns in a situation like this is nothing at best and even more dead kids at worst.

 

I've seen new shooters at the range completely miss the target over and over again from 10 feet away. And that's without any outside stressors. In an active shooter situation you'll have someone who probably doesn't shoot often plus the adrenaline and tunnel vision that comes along with a high stress situation.

 

So an unskilled shooter + shaking hands + panic + tunnel vision + 1 shooter + hundreds of kids = more dead kids. It's way more likely that that teacher with a gun would do collateral damage than actually hit the shooter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

The most likely result of having random untrained teachers in there with guns in a situation like this is nothing at best and even more dead kids at worst.

 

I've seen new shooters at the range completely miss the target over and over again from 10 feet away. And that's without any outside stressors. In an active shooter situation you'll have someone who probably doesn't shoot often plus the adrenaline and tunnel vision that comes along with a high stress situation.

 

So an unskilled shooter + shaking hands + panic + tunnel vision + 1 shooter + hundreds of kids = more dead kids. It's way more likely that that teacher with a gun would do collateral damage than actually hit the shooter.

It’s almost like SWAT officers receive vigorous psychological training 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I don't really think this would do much. If someone was intent of committing one of these acts, they could buy everything a week before and spend almost nothing on the insurance part. Plus, it just punishes poor people. 

 

At this point, only old school six shooters and hunting rifles/shotguns should be available to buy. Plus, a person can only legally by one hand gun. People could still defend themselves, go hunting and shoot at targets. Guns aren't necessary for anything else. 

 

The insurer would presumably take that into account before providing insurance.  The purchase pattern in itself may be a red flag requiring either large payment up front or even an outright denial when combined with other factors such as say social media posts.

 

In almost all these incidents, the perpetrators had guns for while before committing the mass shooting.


It may be the case that say, young males are just too risky to insure and won't be able to obtain liability insurance until their mid 20s.  Well, so be it.  Its hard for them to rent cars too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

They have numerous opportunities to act.

 

Have? As in currently?

 

They have in the past but most of the time they would've needed to do away with the filibuster. 

9 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

The insurer would presumably take that into account before providing insurance.  The purchase pattern in itself may be a red flag requiring either large payment up front or even an outright denial when combined with other factors such as say social media posts.

 

In almost all these incidents, the perpetrators had guns for while before committing the mass shooting.


It may be the case that say, young males are just too risky to insure and won't be able to obtain liability insurance until their mid 20s.  Well, so be it.  Its hard for them to rent cars too.

 

I don't think a purchase pattern would be relevant. If a person already owns a few guns, they can afford the insurance. If someone didn't have a gun, there would be no purchase pattern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

They have numerous opportunities to act.

 

Can't pass bills in Senate that doesn't directly impact budget without 60 votes.  When's last time dems had 60 senators at one time?  Pretty sure it was before Newtown, not after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I don't think a purchase pattern would be relevant. If a person already owns a few guns, they can afford the insurance. If someone didn't have a gun, there would be no purchase pattern. 


There might be - say purchasing a large number of guns, going right to something like an AR-15, purchasing body armor along with the guns might all be red flags.  As a combination of other factors not having anything to do with the gun purchase like social media posts, police record, etc..  The point is to let the market deal with it and set the price appropriately.  There should be ample data at this point to develop an actuarial model.

 

It rather irks me that the state essentially has to subsidize  the damage that gun owners cause society.
 

Edited by DCSaints_fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Can't pass bills in Senate that doesn't directly impact budget without 60 votes.  When's last time dems had 60 senators at one time?  Pretty sure it was before Newtown, not after.

It depends on how big of a stink you want to make about it. There were ways to get the votes to do something. We’ve done nothing. No one gets a pass for that.

  • Thumb down 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It depends on how big of a stink you want to make about it. There were ways to get the votes to do something. We’ve done nothing. No one gets a pass for that.

 

  Their votes are cast before the bill is even written, GOP has made that clear repeatedly with no counter bills. 

 

Once it was determine Newtown couldn't get anything passed, GOP realized they could double down on blocking everything without consequence.

 

They aren't willing to negotiate, there's no way to pass anything without at least 60 Dem senators.  

  • Like 2
  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...