The 'Mass-Shooting In The US' thread

[ice grillin you]

little girl had such a precious face.....until she shot it off...gun appreciation day

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/clevealnd-police-are-investigating-the-death-of-a-6-year-old-girl-after-she-was-shot-in-the-face

[ice grillin you]

so nice of MA to make gun appreciation day on mlk's born day.....these are some special people

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/01/19/shooting-at-mlk-parade-in-miss.html

[ice grillin you]

enjoy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Also to buy novelty paper targets.

Zombies and dudes in mullets are two of my favorites.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

This guy farging gets it.

THIS

[Diomedes]

He gets what, the NRA talking points? 

There were armed police at Columbine.  They actually engaged one of the shooters.  Fat lot of good that did.

There were the best trained best armed security in the world surrounding Reagan and Brady.  Fat lot of good that did them.

More guns=more shootings.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

You are talking about the exceptions and not the rules. That said, are you in favor of removing armed guards from the President of the United States?

[Diomedes]

The exceptions are when an armed citizen actually stops a crime because of his weapon.  Most of the time, he shoots himself or his wife or his kid finds the gun, etc.  What is it, more than a thousand dead by gunfire since Newtown?  You trying to tell me there were more than a thousand crimes prevented during that same period because some modern cowboy was in the right place at the right time?  Makes no sense.  More guns=more shooting.  Fewer guns, fewer shooting.

Regarding the President, you and the NRA are embarrassing yourselves with that line.  Unlike the rest of us, The President is under explicit threat on his life 24/7, so of course he's protected by armed security services.  Don't be daft.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

So why did you mention the inability of Reagan's security to protect him and Brady?

I guess I'll just try to pick and choose which parts of your arguments make sense. The simple point is that places law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms are more attractive to those looking to commit mass acts of gun violence.

If you disagree with the comment in bold, there is absolutely no reason to debate the topic.

[Diomedes]

To support my point that even the best trained and armed security service couldn't stop a shooting, so the idea that rent-a-cops and art teachers with guns would prevent mass shootings is fantasy.

I do disagree.  Fort Hood was armed to the teeth.  So is the the Secret Service.  Columbine had armed guards.  None of which prevented attack.

[PhillyPhanInDC]

He gets what, the NRA talking points? 

There were armed police at Columbine.  They actually engaged one of the shooters.  Fat lot of good that did.

There were the best trained best armed security in the world surrounding Reagan and Brady.  Fat lot of good that did them.

More guns=more shootings.

1. While the kid @ Columbine was engaged in a firefight with the police at Columbine, was he shooting other kids at point blank range while they huddled under desks? No - not that for that period of time. So it likely reduced the total body count, so I'd call that a win.

2. RE: Reagan, I think it makes points for both sides, but this is why I consider shooters like Hinckley and Lanza to be roughly the equivalent of suicide bombers. They aren't necessarily deterred by countermeasures that would preclude a person who's instincts to preserve their own lives has been discarded due to ideology or mental illness. They are going to kill a lot of people, regardless of the mechanism.

3. More guns = more shootings. Correct - and I say that as a gun owner. Their are too many guns out there. We have differing opinions on how to fix it. I believe that putting all the resources into stopping the legal purchases is much less effective than getting rid of the guns on the black market, or those obtained second and third hand, while also making it a more time intensive and thorough process to purchase anything new. I'm always a little put off when I am in a gun store and I hear someone say "I need it right away."

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Fair enough, Dio. I'll leave this thread to the hippos (not that you are necessarily one of them) after I leave my final thoughts.

I don't really care either way about the proposals Obama made except that they're wasteful. I personally don't need a bigger mag or an AR-15, but he's going after the wrong problem.

The real problem is that the access to guns is unfettered and untested, which leads to guns being in the hands of the wrong people... which leads to guns being disallowed and shunned from society. In North Carolina, no law-abiding non-law-enforcement officer may EVER carry a gun...
1. ...anywhere on any school grounds
2. ...into anywhere that charges admission
3. ...into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol (even under the presumption that he or she doesn't drink any alcohol)

It is my strong opinion that if I am trained and able to wield a concealed handgun with expert skill, I should be able to have it basically anywhere I want to protect myself or my family/friends from an imminent threat to our lives. I take the responsibility very seriously and fully support stiff penalties for anyone who accidentally fires their gun or lets it get into the wrong hands.

Our governments (Federal and most all states) already make huge mistakes regarding "gun control" laws, and these proposals don't sniff at the true root causes. But because the proposals "sound" good to a lot of people, it only means even more delays at best for real reform. And the reason that reform is not being proposed is that our elected representatives on both sides of the proverbial aisle are not as interested in keeping us safe as they are in not making waves in the bulk of the arms industry and keeping their pockets lined with gun money. If they actually made it harder and more meaningful to be able to acquire a gun, a lot fewer would be sold. THAT is how "gun control" should work. Banning certain numbers of magazines and guns you've basically randomly decided to call "assault" weapons is a total red herring and yet another massive waste of money the government doesn't have.

[Munson]

So why did you mention the inability of Reagan's security to protect him and Brady?

I guess I'll just try to pick and choose which parts of your arguments make sense. The simple point is that places law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms are more attractive to those looking to commit mass acts of gun violence.

If you disagree with the comment in bold, there is absolutely no reason to debate the topic.

The point is that even people that are as highly trained as Secret Service agents can't even get it right sometimes...so the idea of Joe Dumbass with his concealed handgun protecting my freedom or safety doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies

And, if a law isn't a deterrent from a crazy looking to commit mass acts of gun violence, neither is the idea that someone might have a gun. They're not thinking like a sane person, remember?

[PhillyPhanInDC]

[quote author=Munson link=topic=20029.msg917239#msg917239 date=1358701814

The point is that even people that are as highly trained as Secret Service agents can't even get it right sometimes...so the idea of Joe Dumbass with his concealed handgun protecting my freedom or safety doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies

And, if a law isn't a deterrent from a crazy looking to commit mass acts of gun violence, neither is the idea that someone might have a gun. They're not thinking like a sane person, remember?
[/quote]

Munson, this is a great example of why most people don't take your arguments seriously: You stereotype an entire group of people, from all backgrounds and walks of life as ignorant and oblivious imbeciles. You picture and portray gun owners as frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers, which many are not, and you set yourself using that imagine, so that any argument counter to your's can be discounted. It really shows your ignorance and serves only to discount any valid points you make.

You then go on to use a single example of a somewhat successful assassination attempt to make the case that guns are ineffective in such scenarios, while conveniently failing to acknowledge all of the ones that were thwarted or deterred through the use of force.

[Munson]

The point is that even people that are as highly trained as Secret Service agents can't even get it right sometimes...so the idea of Joe Dumbass with his concealed handgun protecting my freedom or safety doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies

And, if a law isn't a deterrent from a crazy looking to commit mass acts of gun violence, neither is the idea that someone might have a gun. They're not thinking like a sane person, remember?

Munson, this is a great example of why most people don't take your arguments seriously: You stereotype an entire group of people, from all backgrounds and walks of life as ignorant and oblivious imbeciles. You picture and portray gun owners as frothing-at-the-mouth right wingers, which many are not, and you set yourself using that imagine, so that any argument counter to your's can be discounted. It really shows your ignorance and serves only to discount any valid points you make.

You then go on to use a single example of a somewhat successful assassination attempt to make the case that guns are ineffective in such scenarios, while conveniently failing to acknowledge all of the ones that were thwarted or deterred through the use of force.

Where did I say that all gun owners are Joe Dumbass? My viewpoint is most Americans are Joe Dumbass. That being said, the amount of "accidents" that gun owners seem to encounter on a yearly basis doesn't do well for your stereotype either.

I am not currently a gun owner but plan on being one someday when I can afford to do so. Most likely a hunting rifle with a scope. I'd also really like to take up the bow/crossbow too. The challenge of being accurate with a bow interests me.

And I was making the case that even highly trained professionals with weapons sometimes aren't enough, so this notion that random American citizen with a gun is some effective deterrent is nothing more than wishful thinking.