General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The Columbine one was sitting in his car in the parking lot or some such right?

 

Kids don't have to die unprotected while you jerk off to banning ar-15s either

The Columbine officer actually exchanged gun shots with the shooters.

 

And if your gun is your manhood, then it speaks a lot about you. And it also shows how little you care about innocent victims of gun violence. Take it back, you don't actually care about them. Especially for the innocent kids who are murdered in our schools.

Edited February 15, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[twa]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

The Columbine officer actually exchanged gun shots with the shooters.

 

And if your gun is your manhood, then it speaks a lot about you. And it also shows how little you care about innocent victims of gun violence. Take it back, you don't actually care about them. Especially for the innocent kids who are murdered in our schools.

 

at what point were shots exchanged?.....can you give me a body count at that point?

 

You are the one linking guns to manhood , and flailing away on some other BS as usual.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

We should have trap doors in the ceilings that you can hit a button to open, and when you do, banana peels fall all over the floor and the shooters slip and fall before they can kill anyone else.

 

I'll check back in the morning. I expect that this idea will have received the same amount of time and attention in this thread as the suggestion of arming teachers seeing as how they are equally valid.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[twa]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We should have trap doors in the ceilings that you can hit a button to open, and when you do, banana peels fall all over the floor and the shooters slip and fall before they can kill anyone else.

 

I expect this idea to get an equal amount of time in this thread as the suggestion of arming teachers because it is just as valid.

 

Story is a coach shielded kids with his body, I'd prefer a different option...or a addition to it.

Maybe background checks right?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

Story is a coach shielded kids with his body, I'd prefer a different option...or a addition to it.

Maybe background checks right?

Let's put together a few points you've made in this thread and see if we can't wrap it all up in a neat little package...

 

1. More guns and more armed people is the only realistic option

because...

2. We can't pass gun legislation

because...

3. There's a lot of crazy assholes in this country with gun fetishes who would start killing people

Which therefore brings us right back to point #1...

4. We obviously need more guns

???

Edited February 15, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Commander PK]

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We should have trap doors in the ceilings that you can hit a button to open, and when you do, banana peels fall all over the floor and the shooters slip and fall before they can kill anyone else.

 

I expect this idea to get an equal amount of time in this thread as the suggestion of arming teachers because it is just as valid.

Do you realize how crazy you sound?  

 

Most people who who are talking about arming teachers are not talking about just handing them a gun and wishing them luck.  

 

Personally, I believe encouraging teachers to learn to shoot and apply for concealed carry permits is not a bad idea.  Once they meet the criteria set they can carry while In the school.  Part of the process of saving lives is going to be recognizing that there is not a practical way to rid America of guns and the threat of gun violence is here to stay.  

 

 

[twa]

About what I would expect from your reading level Sacks.....Good night.

[elkabong82]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

a part of the solution, do you doubt the ability of recruiters?

 

Seems more realistic than thinking you are going to remove guns from society .

I'm a teacher and a gun owner. While it may make sense to have a couple staff members trained and conceal carry, you wouldn't be able to have enough to make a significance difference in response time without sacrificing the safe school environment.

 

Students and staff mostly will not be comfortable going to a school every day where they think half the teachers are packing. School shooting isn't ominous every day like that would be, so it's not something most parents and students are going to agree to unless it's just a few staff members. 

 

Besides that, your solution is flawed because it's focused on dealing with the shooting as it happens and not on stopping it from ever taking place.

 

Find the commonalities among these shooters, determine warning signs to watch for, teach this in homes, workplaces, and schools. This incident today, students said they knew who it was before the name was released. They expected it of that kid. Imagine if some had spoke up before now. Like looking for signs of suicide is taught, so can this. 

 

And of course there needs to be better gun laws on the books. Training and mental health screening conducted by gov. should be required on first purchase and renewed every so often like a license. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by elkabong82

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

8 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Do you realize how crazy you sound?  

 

Most people who who are talking about arming teachers are not talking about just handing them a gun and wishing them luck.  

 

Personally, I believe encouraging teachers to learn to shoot and apply for concealed carry permits is not a bad idea.  Once they meet the criteria set they can carry while In the school.  Part of the process of saving lives is going to be recognizing that there is not a practical way to rid America of guns and the threat of gun violence is here to stay.  

I was a public school teacher for 12 years. It's a dumb idea.

 

edit: You don't need to "RID" America of guns. We don't need 0 guns. That's nonsense. We need to study gun violence and gun crime (which the right wing government obstructs at every turn) and then use the data to enact common sense laws that will reduce both with the understanding that we're not going to ever completely eliminate either. Right now we do nothing. We can't even study the **** because the GOP has done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that losing their NRA funding would be worse than a few more dead kids.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Thank you. 

 

Im a conservative.  And I’m ready to issue serious serious gun control measures.

 

So are most conservatives.  For example, closing the "gun show loophole" is favored by 90% of Republican voters, and 80% of NRA members.  

 

And opposed by virtually every Republican legislator, and a small number of Democrat ones.  

 

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

 

But youre ****ing lying if you state that the GOP is the problem and the Dems are the solutiion

 

You're ****ing lying is you try to claim that they aren't.  Which you absolutely are, when you try to argue that well, the NRA owns a small number of Democrats, therefore the GOP bears 0 responsibility when they oppose them 100%.  

 

4 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Carry on folks.  Remember the tears Obama shed after Sandy Hook and the impressive legislation he and the Dems enacted when they ruled the roost. 

 

 

 

So let's just look at what happened, weeks after Sandy Hook, when the Democrats who you're trying to blame tried to advance legislation to close the "gun show loophole" in the Senate.  (The GOP ran the House, which, I'm pretty sure, did absolutely nothing on the issue.)  

 

S Amdt 715 was an attempt to add language closing the "gun show loophole" to the bill which the Senate was advancing, in response to Sandy Hook.  (Sponsored by Manchin, Toomey, Kirk, and Schumer.  2D and 2 R.)  

 

The attempt was filibustered, so it would have taken 60 votes to insert it into the bill.  (There were 55 "D+I" in the Senate, and the House was majority Republican.  So much for "ruled the roost".)

 

The roll call vote:  For-against

D:  48-5

I:     2-0 (I'm pretty sure that both of the I's were "Democrats who claim to be independent") 

R:   4-41

Was this vote 100% along party lines?  Nope.  

 

Was it 90% along party lines?  Yep.  

 

So, please, try to tell me some more about how the Republicans didn't kill this measure (which, I'll point out, was supported bu 90% of Republican voters).  And throw around claims that everybody else is "****ing lying".  

 

(Feinstein attempted to add language to the same bill that would have banned "assault weapons", magazines >10 rounds, and bump stocks.  Where've we heard about those things, since Sandy Hook?  It failed along a similar vote.)  

 

(I can find a few newspaper articles and Wiki pages sating that the measure as a whole failed along similarly partisan votes, but can't find the actual, official, roll call vote.  I assume this means that Reed pulled one of his "pull the bill before the vote is over, so he can try again later" stunts, and terefore no official vote happened.)  

 

[visionary]

 

[Hersh]

15 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

I'm a teacher and a gun owner. While it may make sense to have a couple staff members trained and conceal carry, you wouldn't be able to have enough to make a significance difference in response time without sacrificing the safe school environment.

 

Students and staff mostly will not be comfortable going to a school every day where they think half the teachers are packing. School shooting isn't ominous every day like that would be, so it's not something most parents and students are going to agree to unless it's just a few staff members. 

 

Besides that, your solution is flawed because it's focused on dealing with the shooting as it happens and not on stopping it from ever taking place.

 

Find the commonalities among these shooters, determine warning signs to watch for, teach this in homes, workplaces, and schools. This incident today, students said they knew who it was before the name was released. They expected it of that kid. Imagine if some had spoke up before now. Like looking for signs of suicide is taught, so can this. 

 

And of course there needs to be better gun laws on the books. Training and mental health screening should be required on first purchase and renewed every so often like a license. 

 

Thank you for this post. If this was an illegal immigrant or someone tied to a terrorist group, people would be ready to spend billions to stop it from happening again. We'd have pushes to reform immigration laws, build walls, have travel bans and bomb countries. When it's a mass shooting by an American, it's a shoulder shrug, thoughts and prayers, and a reminder to not even think about impeding the ability to buy most any type of gun or keep track of the amount of bullets or clips someone buys or, God forbid, make any actual effort takes place to stop mentally ill people from being able to buy a gun in the first place. 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Hersh

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

 

17 minutes ago, twa said:

About what I would expect from your reading level Sacks.....Good night.

You're right. I'm sorry.

 

19 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Do you realize how crazy you sound?

I never said we should try to stop the shooters with slippery banana peels. You can't read!

[Larry]

16 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Find the commonalities among these shooters, determine warning signs to watch for, teach this in homes, workplaces, and schools. This incident today, students said they knew who it was before the name was released. They expected it of that kid. Imagine if some had spoke up before now. Like looking for signs of suicide is taught, so can this. 

 

Just pointing out - Just because, after a mass shooting, you can find people who will say "I knew there was something funny about that guy", does not in any way imply that we have the ability to predict who the next one will be.  

 

It's the common problem with the "if only we could have taken the gun away from this one guy" kind of thinking.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

19 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Do you realize how crazy you sound?  

 

Most people who who are talking about arming teachers are not talking about just handing them a gun and wishing them luck.  

 

Personally, I believe encouraging teachers to learn to shoot and apply for concealed carry permits is not a bad idea.  Once they meet the criteria set they can carry while In the school.  Part of the process of saving lives is going to be recognizing that there is not a practical way to rid America of guns and the threat of gun violence is here to stay.  

 

 

A concealed weapons permit training is NOT sufficient for what you’re asking for. You can get a concealed carry in a weekend. Who is going to set the nevessary “criteria” to be the killer teacher? How will they be armed? 

 

You say that you’re not talking about handing them a handgun and saying good luck, but what are you suggesting? Who’s goung to pay for it? Did you see the recent POTUS budget? Our governor just slashed education and counties around us are closing schools because of it. And yet you want some sort of Teacher SWAT team.

 

Get real.

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out - Just because, after a mass shooting, you can find people who will say "I knew there was something funny about that guy", does not in any way imply that we have the ability to predict who the next one will be.  

 

It's the common problem with the "if only we could have taken the gun away from this one guy" kind of thinking.  

 

That's a good point. I wish we'd invest the time and money into this problem to see if we can't deter, aid, identify, stop this from happening. Universal Health care, a jobs program around therapists (and nurses and doctors) as part as yearly or semi-annual appointments plus some added sensible laws and enforcement to see if we can't get a gripe on this problem and other problems like the opioid issue. Our health care shouldn't just be about blood work, deep breaths and coughing. 

[Renegade7]

36 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

Training and mental health screening conducted by gov. should be required on first purchase and renewed every so often like a license. 

Patiently waiting for what type of mental health issues will decline a gun purchase.  I asked that a page or two ago and no one has touched it yet.  Everything else in your post I agree with, but I couldn't give it a like without bringing this up.

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

That's a good point. I wish we'd invest the time and money into this problem to see if we can't deter, aid, identify, stop this from happening. 

 

I'm pretty certain that we will never have the ability to predict who will commit the next mass shooting.  (And remember, we'd have to be able to predict it years in advance.)  

 

Maybe some day we will be able to say that the odds of Person X are 1 in a million, but the odds of Person Y are only 1 in a thousand.  

 

But what do you do then?  Create a list of everybody who's ever had some oddsmaker put a "1000:1" betting line on the guy?  (So that we can then assign special restrictions and laws against them?)  

 

Sorry, but I'm pretty certain that a lot of the "better screening" meme is being pushed by people who know damned well that we will never have that ability, and they're fine with demanding that we should do nothing, because we're waiting for a magic wand to be invented.  

 

(It's kinda like the people who like to spout that "I'd be willing to do something about the Dreamers, just as soon as no one ever enters the country illegally ever again.")  

[Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Patiently waiting for what type of mental health issues will decline a gun purchase.  I asked that a page or two ago and no one has touched it yet.  Everything else in your post I agree with, but I couldn't give it a like without bringing this up.

 

This gets into the need to have mental health as part of universal health care so as we can look to professionals for guidance. 

[Renegade7]

30 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

So let's just look at what happened, weeks after Sandy Hook, when the Democrats who you're trying to blame tried to advance legislation to close the "gun show loophole" in the Senate.  (The GOP ran the House, which, I'm pretty sure, did absolutely nothing on the issue.)  

 

This point has come up a couple times that last couple pages, but some people are still sticking to their guns on that topic, no pun intended.

[Hersh]

Just now, Larry said:

 

I'm pretty certain that we will never have the ability to predict who will commit the next mass shooting.  (And remember, we'd have to be able to predict it years in advance.)  

 

Maybe some day we will be able to say that the odds of Person X are 1 in a million, but the odds of Person Y are only 1 in a thousand.  

 

But what do you do then?  Create a list of everybody who's ever had some oddsmaker put a "1000:1" betting line on the guy?  (So that we can then assign special restrictions and laws against them?)  

 

Sorry, but I'm pretty certain that a lot of the "better screening" meme is being pushed by people who know damned well that we will never have that ability, and they're fine with demanding that we should do nothing, because we're waiting for a magic wand to be invented.  

 

(It's kinda like the people who like to spout that "I'd be willing to do something about the Dreamers, just as soon as no one ever enters the country illegally ever again.")  

 

This misses the point by a mile. By having a focus on mental health care, the kids/adults that have committed these crimes may never have reached that dark place in the first place. 

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

This misses the point by a mile. By having a focus on mental health care, the kids/adults that have committed these crimes may never have reached that dark place in the first place. 

 

 

OK, please tell me your proposal - We're going to prevent mass shootings, in advance, by doing what, to who?  

 

Edit:  my post above may come across as being hostile, and I don't intend that. 

 

I support the the idea of improving access to mental health care. As a goal in itself. Just of the opinion that trying to tie that to reducing mass shootings is going to be impossible to prove, and is guaranteed to sweep up thousands (maybe millions) of people, per mass shooting prevented. 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Larry

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Hersh said:

 

This gets into the need to have mental health as part of universal health care so as we can look to professionals for guidance. 

I agree, this is a grey enough area that I'd prefer a professional recommendation from someone who specializes in mental health (therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, nurse-practitioner, etc) versus letting the government just have a zero-tolerance "you got what, oh hell now!" list they go by.  

 

I don't agree with just saying, oh they have depression, and saying they can't own a gun.  It's deeper then that, a lot of these guys that we determined had mental health issues also had a documented obsession with violence (Virginia Tech, Newtown, Aurora).  If we want to go the route of saying ever individual that wants to get a gun has to get a doctor's note approving it, I can live with that.

[Renegade7]

29 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

This misses the point by a mile. By having a focus on mental health care, the kids/adults that have committed these crimes may never have reached that dark place in the first place. 

It's deeper then that.  In Virginia Tech and Aurora the shooters were diagnosed and getting treatment, but that information either was not made available while they were accumulating weapons and ammo or ignored.