More mass shootings

[jcd11235 0]

kallend

I find it hard to believe that the US population is so out of line with the rest of the developed world with respect to criminality.

To be fair, we're just talking about a single order of magnitude. That could be easy to miss!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

jcd11235

***And, you don't have the data. Gun rights people have the data. All you only have is spin.

Corrected to reflect reality.

In the delusional world you live in? Probably!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Seven schoolchildren stabbed to death in northern China

The suspect told the authorities he had been bullied when he was a pupil at the school, had hated his classmates and decided to use a dagger to kill people on Friday, the bureau said.

12 more were wounded: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/27/school-children-stabbed-death-china


Update: 9 killed; 19 wounded.

%guncontrol %#

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jcd11235

***… the reality is that DGUs rarely involve shots fired …

Are you saying the guns are used as blunt instruments in ~90% DGUs, or are you saying the guns were not actually used (thus not a DGU).

I'm saying the guns were not fired.

That doesn't mean it wasn't used.

In most places, simply pointing a gun at someone is considered "assault with a deadly weapon." The gun doesn't have to be fired.
In other places, 'brandishing' (showing the gun in a threatening manner) is a crime.

Both are generally considered "defensive gun uses" if someone does it to prevent or stop a crime.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jcd11235 0]

wolfriverjoe

That doesn't mean it wasn't used.

That's precisely what it means.

wolfriverjoe

In most places, simply pointing a gun at someone is considered "assault with a deadly weapon." The gun doesn't have to be fired.

Committing assault requires only to threaten harm. One can also be convicted of assault for threatening to punch someone. It doesn't imply they actually used their fist (which would be a different crime).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jcd11235

***That doesn't mean it wasn't used.

That's precisely what it means.

wolfriverjoe

In most places, simply pointing a gun at someone is considered "assault with a deadly weapon." The gun doesn't have to be fired.

Committing assault requires only to threaten harm. One can also be convicted of assault for threatening to punch someone. It doesn't imply they actually used their fist (which would be a different crime).

Well, often the news reports on an armed robbery say something to the effect of "The suspect used a gun, but no shots were fired and no one was injured."

One can 'use' a gun to threaten or intimidate someone.

It's a far more effective tactic than using a finger.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jcd11235 0]

wolfriverjoe

Well, often the news reports on an armed robbery say something to the effect of "The suspect used a gun, but no shots were fired and no one was injured."

Right. Because one can threaten and intimidate with a gun without actually using the gun. Many laws thus take into consideration whether or not suspects had a gun at the time of the crime, so such details are frequently reported, albeit, as you noted, imprecisely.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nolhtairt 0]

And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys, all around 6 feet tall, kicked in the door of an elderly petite lady at 3 am or so. They were armed. She got her gun and came out shooting. Shot one dead and the other two fled and they did return fire in the process but didn't hit her.

Fuck Yeah! Grannie's got a gun, baddies betta run!

[DJL 232]

Sweet. Sounds like this is all along the lines of what we've all been saying that gun laws should be strict enough that they're difficult for criminals to get but easy enough for law abiding citizens to get.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jcd11235 0]

nolhtairt

And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[gowlerk 1,913]

jcd11235

***And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

Yup, might as well have said "three scary boogeymen". And I'd like to see a link to that story. Google turns up nothing. Did it come from a gun rights site or something?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

******And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

Yup, might as well have said "three scary boogeymen". And I'd like to see a link to that story. Google turns up nothing. Did it come from a gun rights site or something?

If it had said it was three "bad hombres" they could use this one as double duty to prove immigration threats too. As it is the best anyone can dig up is the random thwarted home invasion or knife attack somewhere else in the world. In the meantime criminal use of firearms and mass shootings continue unabated.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,400]

>If it had said it was three "bad hombres" they could use this one as double duty to prove
>immigration threats too.

The current politically correct phrasing would be "bad hombres from the ghetto."

[Phil1111 911]

gowlerk

******And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

Yup, might as well have said "three scary boogeymen". And I'd like to see a link to that story. Google turns up nothing. Did it come from a gun rights site or something?

Below is a good story on how gun sites, right wing sites, twitter, etc. spread disinformation or news with an agenda. If there was a name for one of the "Blacks" a seach would show up maximum exposure on gunsites like AR-15.com, Calguns, Breitbart, etc.
https://www.wired.com/story/pro-gun-russian-bots-flood-twitter-after-parkland-shooting/

[billvon 2,400]

So arm more people to prevent crime! Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun! Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Unless, of course, it's a prominent republican at risk. Then guns are dangerous and risky, and the good guys can't have them because one of them might turn out to be a bad guy. They must be banned from the event. They're really only safe enough around children.

From Esquire:
================================
The NRA Believes In The Right To Bear Arms (Unless Its At Their Own Event)
"I thought giving everyone a gun was to enhance safety?"

BY OLIVIA OVENDEN
30/04/2018

In the past few months companies have been demonstrating which side of the gun control debate they stand, with YouTube banning videos selling firearms, Google swapping the gun emoji for a water pistol and Bumble banning photographs of weapons on the dating app.

Their decisions to weigh in demonstrates a growing resistance to the country's relaxed gun control laws which have contributed to an epidemic of mass shootings in America.

The National Rifle Association's response to the calls for tighter laws on gun ownership has been to reiterate that the second amendment is a god-given right of all U.S. citizens, and peddle the line that guns are not dangerous, people are dangerous. They have long pushed the idea of a "good guy with a gun" to neutralise the bad.

So when the NRA announced last week that they would be banning guns for a speech made by Vice-President Mike Pence to NRA members, many were quick to point out their hypocrisy.

"I dont understand. The NRA has banned guns at their convention because Pence will be there. But guns don't kill people, people kill people. I know that because the NRA says so. They should be banning the people, and leaving cheering guns in the the seats of the auditorium."

"NRA - We need guns in our schools!
Me - You start by allowing them at your conventions and we’ll talk
NRA - whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s not get crazy here"

"On so many levels, this is enlightening. According to the NRA, we should want everyone to have weapons when we are in public. But when they put on a convention, the weapons are a concern? I thought giving everyone a gun was to enhance safety. Am I missing something?"

The news prompted criticism from survivors of the Parkland school shooting, to whom Trump floated the idea of arming teachers in order to protect them. It appears that the NRA are happy to foster a gun-free area for themselves but nowhere else.

“Wait wait wait you’re telling me to make the VP safe there aren’t any weapons around but when it comes to children they want guns everywhere?” tweeted Matt Deitsch, a Parkland student. “Can someone explain this to me?”

Fellow student Cameron Kasky also mocked their announcement saying that, "The NRA has evolved into such a hilarious parody of itself."
==============================

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

******And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

Yup, might as well have said "three scary boogeymen". And I'd like to see a link to that story. Google turns up nothing. Did it come from a gun rights site or something?

Googling "woman defends her self in home invasion by three" turns up several articles about incidents that may or may not be the same ones.

[tri160 1]

Saying that the NRA is banning weapons at the convention while Vice President Pence is there is misleading at best. The rules banning weapons are laid down by the Secret Service and are the same for every POTUS and VPOTUS. The NRA actually allows carry at all their events in accordance with local laws and venue policies. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2018/04/24/vice-president-mike-pence-will-speak-nra-convention-dallas

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

Saying that the NRA is banning weapons at the convention while Vice President Pence is there is misleading at best. The rules banning weapons are laid down by the Secret Service and are the same for every POTUS and VPOTUS.

Yes, they are. And they fly directly in the face of NRA claims that guns make you safer. For an administration that supports the NRA so directly - that's pretty funny.

"Guns in schools! As long as they don't put me at risk. Ban them around me."

[gowlerk 1,913]

tri160

Saying that the NRA is banning weapons at the convention while Vice President Pence is there is misleading at best. The rules banning weapons are laid down by the Secret Service and are the same for every POTUS and VPOTUS. The NRA actually allows carry at all their events in accordance with local laws and venue policies. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2018/04/24/vice-president-mike-pence-will-speak-nra-convention-dallas

Well then. Maybe they should stand up to the agents of the Deep State who would deny them their rights.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yes, they are. And they fly directly in the face of NRA claims that guns make you safer.

No, it doesn't. The Secret Service isn't trying to make everyone safer, just their protectees).

Derek V

[DJL 232]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Yes, they are. And they fly directly in the face of NRA claims that guns make you safer.

No, it doesn't. The Secret Service isn't trying to make everyone safer, just their protectees).

Derek V

Regardless of who is making the call you can't fail to see the irony here. The secret service, who we all understand to be a very highly trained organization, recognizes that they are not able to respond to a threat and it's therefore better to ban them at certain events. This is well beyond what gun control advocates are calling for.

The flip side of this is every time you see someone surrounded by armed security the NRA crowd shouts, "See, they have guns!!!"

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The secret service, who we all understand to be a very highly trained organization, recognizes that they are not able to respond to a threat and it's therefore better to ban them at certain events.

Or the SS is protecting everyone, just their protectees. And if not allowing firearms in the building makes their protectees safer, even if it makes the others less safe, not their problem.

Derek V

[nolhtairt 0]

jcd11235

***And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

There was security video of the perps.

[gowlerk 1,913]

nolhtairt

******And just recently, in Atlanta three black guys,

Gotta love it when posts contain irrelevant information that serves only to reveal the biases of the poster.

There was security video of the perps.


I still can't find this story. But I did find a video of a similar incident that involved a much younger woman. How about a source?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

Hooknswoop

Quote

The secret service, who we all understand to be a very highly trained organization, recognizes that they are not able to respond to a threat and it's therefore better to ban them at certain events.

Or the SS is protecting everyone, just their protectees. And if not allowing firearms in the building makes their protectees safer, even if it makes the others less safe, not their problem.

Derek V

So a perfect America would be an armed security detail for every American, let's amend the Constitution and call it a day. Sounds like we solved this one guys, time to shut down SC and get back to skydiving stuff. Hey, anyone heard about these RSL things, I just don't like the idea of my reserve deploying while I'm on my back!

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher