A commenter posted: “You don’t have to solve — or even understand — complex moral, cultural, and social problems to reduce their lethality.”
If we limit magazine capacity, people still will die, but not as quickly. That’s what it means to “reduce their lethality.” That’s not a real solution.
It is ONLY by understanding the complex moral, cultural and social mistakes we made, that we have a hope of reversing the mistakes.
The problem is, Liberals don’t think they were mistakes so they’re not willing to consider reversing them, regardless of how many people die because of it.
Joe Doakes
“Reducing lethality”. As Joe points out, it means – at most – that a spree killer switches to multiple ten round magazines (which most spree killers already use); since they’re pretty invariably attacking defenseless targets, they could be using a double-barrel shotgun for all it matters.
And if you somehow, magically, take away all guns? Psychos will switch – have switched – to gasoline, knives, fertilizer, poison gas, trucks, or God only knows what else.
The El Paso shooter drove 650 miles to attack Americans who had different views. The shooter at the Garlic festival also drove to a different state to purchase weapons to kill people in California. So we see people in one area profiting from engaging in violence in another area repeatedly.
The guns used in “liberal”, areas to kill those perceived as liberals are being purchased in Conservative areas. There is also a great deal of rhetoric about killing Liberals. Liberals clearly dislike being mass murdered, so they push for reforms. Conservatives seem to enjoy the prospect of killing their fellow Americans, and push for looser laws about that.
Thanks, Emery, for providing a comment that demonstrates why failing to consider the complex moral, social and cultural problems that created the present crisis, prevents us from considering meaningful changes that can avoid a future crisis. Very helpful. Knew I could depend on you.
Limit a shooter to 10 round magazines with a Saiga 12 compatible AWS SPETS-12 (AR-12)? How would that reduce lethality?
Emery where did you cut and past that tidbit from?
That was a pretty awesome ammo magazine the Toledo (Dayton) shooter utilized…
It’s not for hunting. It’s not for self defense. It’s for mass murder. I see no reason this should be legal.
“I see no reason this should be legal.”
I see no reason it should be legal for women to have their children ripped from their wombs, limb from limb.
The difference is, what D_K is objecting to is a human right, written out plain in the US Constitution. So suck it.
What I don’t l don’t like was crafted from thin air by leftist reprobates who are no longer in power. So D_K can suck that, too.
Big sale on .223 ammo at CheaperThanDirt.com today for those who need to stock up.
It’s not for hunting. It’s not for self defense. It’s for mass murder. “
Leftist chanting points hit parade! An oldie but a goodie!
Gosh I’ll bet that one required no actual thought at all.
You’re getting more efficient Emery
Hey look, the Dayton shooter has been a creepy psychopath for over a decade…
https://www.thedailybeast.com/classmate-says-dayton-shooter-connor-betts-targeted-her-in-high-school-we-predicted-he-would-do-this?ref=home
/“Hey look, the Dayton shooter has been a creepy psychopath for over a decade…”/
Yes, it appears they let almost anyone lawfully purchase firearms these days ….
blaming gun access for these tragedy is like blaming silverware for the obesity epidemic, a gun didnt get up and shoot these people a person did. Evil would find a way even without guns.
Excellent, Emery, you’re heading in the right direction. Keep going . . . WHY are law-abiding adults who have not been adjudicated as mentally ill, allowed to purchase firearms?
I’ll give you a hint – it starts with the letter C.
Magazine limits? The Virginia Tech Shooter used state limited 10 round magazines.
Look at the Dayton shooter. 9 dead in 30 seconds. Excuse me but that’s bolt action rifle rates. He could have done the same with a SMLE.
It’s the Texas Wal-Mart shooter that amazes me. With only a 30 round magazine, he managed to kill 20 and injure 25. Either this was an amazing feat of marksmanship or there’s something that the legacy media is neglecting to mention. You’ll pardon me if I suspect the latter.
The Second amendment is not about keeping and bearing arms for hunting or for sport. It is about keeping weapons that kill people.
.Jeez.
Emery, so you’re suggesting that Japan should stop selling matches? If it saves just one life…
From Clayton Cramer, who is pretty passionate about the mental health disgrace that really underlies this problem, having seen what it did to his brother.
Guns don’t get up and shoot themselves, those anime places don’t burn down on their own — it’s the people behind the actions that cause them. Aided, of course, by the well meaning fools who refuse to act in the face of the evil of people like the Parkland shooter, who should have been committed and prevented from owning firearms.
Clayton’s been working on his book about these mass murders for quite some time now. I doubt very much it will be widely read as it will discuss actual data and won’t fit into the needs of a hysterical MSM/Democrat proposal.
Personally, one of the more interesting parts of that article is the graph showing the frequency of these kinds of attacks. There was a definite spike after the Civil War, and there’s been one after the “Free Love” revolution. At both those times there had been a massive trauma and reorganization of society. I wonder if that could be a connecting issue?
Im hoping that now at the next debate the dems all come out for confiscation or saying certain groups shouldnt be allowed to access firearms without due process. It would make the issue clear that they just believe no one in this country should have guns
While I might agree with Emery that the magazine that the Dayton shooter purported had appears ridiculous, I find that having to have the newest I-phone over the previous generation is also ridiculous.
I know nothing specifically about the magazine in question, but in general, it looks to me that it would be prone to malfunction and jamming.
So, what do the gun ninnies want?
If they want to reduce gun crime, a magazine limit won’t help.
If they want to stop mass shootings, a magazine limit won’t help.
If you want to reduce the lethality of a mass shooting, the obvious solution is to reduce police response time and/or arm victims/bystanders.
Don’t be distracted by arguments like “no one needs a gun/magazine like that.” What are they hoping to do? You can spend all day arguing about what a person does or does not need.
“I think we can do something on background checks like we’ve never done before.” ~!Donald Trump 8/7/19
“We’re going to be very strong on background checks. We’re going to be doing very strong background checks.” ~ Trump in 2018 after Parkland shooting 🤔
The only mass shooting I’m concerned with stopping is the one that could take my life, or the lives of those around me.
As John K said yesterday, we’ll never be able to fix all the broken people the leftist agenda has created. At least not until we divvy the country up. Biggest reason being, the leftists don’t want them fixed if it negatively impacts the clown world they’ve created. And it would.
In addition, I’m not giving up any more Constitutional rights in trade for safety. Life is dangerous, modern life is very dangerous. You could be killed by a piece of concrete falling off a building, or get hit by public transit.
So the only logical response is to be as prepared as possible. Put that goddamn phone down and pay attention to what’s going on around you. If you have a carry permit, never ever leave home without your pistol.
Since I have an irrational fear of firearms, I’ll probably have to become an expert with Ninja stars or something…I’ll figure it out.
Anyone who wants perfect safety is free to move to a deserted island. America is not the country for you.
“Automatic firearm” also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle cartridges.
https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2006/orc/jd_292311-671.html
Would a “background check” have stopped either of the two mass shootings that occurred last week?
What result do you want? How does your plan achieve this?
The Parkland shooter would have passed a background check because the sheriffs dept. and school officials did not put his threatening behavior on his record.
Again, what result do you want? How does your plan achieve this?
Simple questions that the gun ninnies won’t answer.
The reason they won’t answer them is because their goal is for them to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Gee D_K, it’s almost like Trump has been saying stuff just to get the canoe heads to STFU.
Maybe y’all won’t get shit!
🤔
“Build the wall!”
“It’s an invasion!”
“Illegal aliens!”
“Caravan infestations!”
“They’re rapists!”
“They’re animals!”
“They’re criminals!”
~ Trump to his followers.
”You’re mentally ill!” ~ Trump referring to shooters…
“They’re rapists!”
“They’re animals!”
“They’re criminals!”
This was specifically about MS-13.
It looks like the strain is becoming too much for D_K; he’s babbling incoherent hate. Someone should alert the FBI before something aweful happens.
The lapse into incomprehensible raging by Leftists is as amusing as it is predictable.
If you look at the El Paso nutters manifesto, he essentially predicated exactly what would happen with media coverage and the blame game, and it has to a T.
“Build the wall!”
“It’s an invasion!”
“Illegal aliens!”
“Caravan infestations!”
“They’re rapists!”
“They’re animals!”
“They’re criminals!”
~ Trump to his followers.
I hear you Mr President, I know exactly what to do! ~ A well armed true MAGA believer
“Channeling the mob drama, “The Untouchables,” Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
I hear, you, Obama, I know exactly what to do! -The Daytona mass shooter.
It’s like slapping around a clown. Fun, but your hand gets that gloppy clown make up on it.
“Channeling the mob drama, “The Untouchables,” Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
I hear, you, Obama, I know exactly what to do! -James Hodgkinson, congress mass shooter.
Except neither of these shooters was a Trump supporter, Emery. The Dayton shooter was a Bernie bro and Fauxcahontas supporter, and the El Paso shooter was a radical environmentalist trying to reduce the population to make life on earth sustainable. Both despised Trump and publicly attacked him.
You must be projecting.
I never made a connection to either incident in my previous post. Sigh….
Boy Emery is the definition of not knowing when to quit, at least hes willing to engage in (somewhat) civil debate unlike most of those left of center
Emery spake:
thence he spake:
And now Emery claims “I never made a connection to either incident in my previous post.”
Sure, Em, sure.
Bottom line: Nothing, NOTHING, that the libs are suggesting would have stopped either of these incidents.
Go look at Clayton Cramer’s post (my comment is still in moderation on this) at claytoncramer dot blogspot dot com and you can see some of the data he’s collecting for a book he’s working on about mass murder, its causes and its methods. He’s been working on it for quite a while, and it’s grown out of some of his experience of our lack of a functional mental health system (his brother was schizophrenic). It’s pretty interesting, but the main, underlying cause for most of these mass murders is mental illness, which is hardly surprising.
My personal opinion is that we’re stuck trying to balance a fair number of “rights” here. The Dayton shooter had every right to be a Satanist, pornogrinder, Bernie bro, but at what point do we define his eccentricities to be dangerous? There’s little doubt that in the 50s he’d have been confined for a while, treated, and then never allowed to own a gun again.
But here’s the rub: liberals, in their desire to normalize all forms of behavior and mental illness, wouldn’t put up with that kind of system again. They’ll only put up with diagnoses that put shame on traditionalists.
But at some level we have to realize that as a society we have a responsibility towards those who are mentally ill, and that not all beliefs are equally valid. It’s not a form of “independence” to be disconnected from the world, living on the street, and doing drugs in Minneapolis in the middle of the winter, no matter what the city counsel believes. It’s also no kindness to allow them to live that way. And that it is not the presence of firearms that causes these mass murders — even today about 1/4 of the “mass murders” that occur do so without firearms.
Again, go look at Clayton’s graphs on what he has found, and look at the two time periods where these murders have spiked. Both have been in times where massive realignments in society have occurred.
I’m guessing D_K’s mother never figured out why his pets always disappeared after a couple weeks.
A dig around his childhood home would probably look like a Chinese restaurant had been run out of there at some time.
Didn’t take long for Neil deGrasse Tyson to get his mind right.
Getting shunned at Starbucks is enough to break even the strongest man’s will. Neil depends on Dunning Kruger sufferers for his living. No way he could convince them it was their problem.
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1916347001
Tyson has apologized for wrong think, Swiftee. I fear that his self-criticism may be insincere. Apparently Tyson’s critics on Twitter — many of them professional journalists — are insane, shit throwing monkeys. I particularly enjoyed reading the tweets by people who felt that finding out your cousin was killed in a mass shooting is more of an emotional shock, than, say, coming home to find your mother/father/brother/sister has blown their brains out on the living room sofa. The last thing that they want is the perspective that can be gained by a cool understanding of the facts.
Jay Dee;
I too, suspect that all of these incidents are deep state false flags to get gun control. There are too many unanswered questions in all of them. For instance, we never found out what happened with the Las Vegas shooting. Funny how two people that were interviewed and said there were at least two shooters, died while alone, one out in the desert.
As history has shown, despots will do anything to stay in power; lie, cheat, attack people that disagree with them and even kill innocent people. This is today’s DemonRat Communist party.
Check this opinion:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JReHVOBAwJsd/
Something else;
https://climatechangedispatch.com/el-paso-shooter-eco-extremist/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateChangeDispatch+%28Climate+Change+Dispatch+Latest+News%29
If Guns aren’t the problem and people are the problem. Then why do you want the problem to have a gun?
Now this is going to be tricky, Emery, but I am going to ask you to be self-critical.
How can the blame for the weekend mass shootings be both the fault of Trump and the fault of lax gun laws?
At some point isn’t something that is not political the source of the madness that spawns mass shooters?
Emery asked: If Guns aren’t the problem and people are the problem. Then why do you want the problem to have a gun?
We don’t. Liberals do.
Gun owners have always recognized limits on gun ownership: sane, law-abiding adults.
Liberals insist that people who aren’t in their right minds must be allowed to roam free, untreated. Liberals insist that people who refuse to obey the law must be exempt from the consequences of refusing to obey the law.
We don’t want it, Emery. You do.
More effective gun control, particularly of automatic weapons and assault rifles, is needed, not some “change or acceptance in attitude.” Some forms of social control simply require strict rules that are enforced. The US used to be strict in keeping automatic weapons out of the hands of the non-law enforcement citizenry. There is also a key law enforcement issue here — if the citizenry doesn’t have automatic weapons, law enforcement needs far fewer weapons and SWAT-team like assault forces — this in turn results in more effective law enforcement. So much for the guns are need for better law enforcement argument.
In the US, the plutocracy operating through the Republican party has weaponized the concept of “gun rights” with the idea of “liberty” and that liberty is something that liberal authoritarians are trying to take away from “real Americans” by taking away their guns. Guns are the only thing that stand between free “real Americans” and tyranny. Feeding paranoia to create a sense of alienation leading to the election of populists who can be counted on to support lower taxes, more monopolies, and overall more “individualism” (code for zip entitlements).
One can see this play out as the Murdoch-owned Fox News trips all over itself on gun control and white nationalism and trying to find a new message when their boy had just spent the week before on a twitter barrage that was the most racist screed beyond anything seen from an American president ever — probably beyond that of even Jefferson Davis and the states rights cant.
In America, sick politics is usually behind sick social behavior, not vice versa. And the Republican party is sick. Straight up.
“particularly of automatic weapons”
They’ve been pretty much illegal for regular people for over 80 years.
“assault rifles”
See above.
If you’re talking black rifles with scary-looking military accessories? They are used *less*, per capita, in crime than any other class of firearm. Outside mass shootings, there’s a case to be made they are used more in self-defense than to commit crimes.
Critical thought is called for, not cutting and pasting chanting points.
More effective gun control, particularly of automatic weapons…
I don’t know where you kyped this, but like most gun-control screeds, it reads like the Blutarsky Germans at Pearl Harbor rant. Eight words in – automatic weapons are illegal and have been for some 80 years.
Then the name-calling and the obvious disdain for people who have different opinions that you (or the original author). Why would any gun owner disarm in the face of such rabid hate?
“It’s not for hunting. It’s not for self defense. It’s for mass murder.”
And yet 99.99995% of all AR-15 rifles in the US have never killed anybody. What are the chances that a new gun law will take ONLY those 0.00005% out of circulation?
Or… These two shooters murdered roughly 2 dozen people. Now if we had only had a law against murder. Oh, wait….
LMAO! Take a patently false premise, and run to the opposite goal line with it…just look at you go, D_K.
Makin daddy real proud, lil feller.
“automatic weapons are illegal and have been for some 80 years.”
That’s not completely true. Some states have made them illegal, but the NFA provides a means of ownership.
Pay a tax and submit to an FBI background check and in many states you can own a class III firearm.
At least that’s what my gun owning pals tell me.
“The guns used in “liberal”, areas to kill those perceived as liberals are being purchased in Conservative areas.”
You use the plural “guns”. You provided one example.
” There is also a great deal of rhetoric about killing Liberals”
And there is a great deal of rhetoric about killing conservatives and Trump voters. More coming this noon.