Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Texas and ohio mass shootings..

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)

    Texas and ohio mass shootings..

    Wow. Words can't describe my sorrow at seeing these 2 mass shootings in less than a day, thousands of miles apart...

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    Wow. Words can't describe my sorrow at seeing these 2 mass shootings in less than a day, thousands of miles apart...
    Agreed. My wife and I used to make frequent trips to that mall in El Paso when we were stationed at Holloman in the early 90s. Of course, that says a lot about being at Holloman and wanting to drive over an hour to go to a real mall.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    I've seen on one site, discussing it, a LOT of folk are outraged, at republicans for "not doing more to stop all these shootings". BUT what exactly is it, they want done? Unless we as a nation, vote to repeal the 2nd amendment, you won't ban guns. So do they want everyone 'mental' to be disbarred weapons? IF so, HOW THEN do we identify those who are mental? What qualifies as being mental??

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    I've seen on one site, discussing it, a LOT of folk are outraged, at republicans for "not doing more to stop all these shootings". BUT what exactly is it, they want done? Unless we as a nation, vote to repeal the 2nd amendment, you won't ban guns. So do they want everyone 'mental' to be disbarred weapons? IF so, HOW THEN do we identify those who are mental? What qualifies as being mental??
    This is a tough, if not impossible issue to solve. If you ban guns, it will continue. If you don't ban guns, it will continue. The guns have been around for decades, but the mass shootings have not. I have mixed feelings about background checks, as they'll be required even for one family member to give another family member a gun.

    One thing is for sure, I can't stand seeing these yard signs in my area that call for "Common Sense Gun Laws." Ok, say we ban the so-called "Assault Guns." What happens when someone walks into an establishment with one or more revolvers and executes 6-12 innocent people? If it's a black shooter and black victims in Chicago, the story won't make CNN/MSNBC, but otherwise the next "discussion" will be for gun control on revolvers. Same thing with shot guns, or ANY other gun for that matter.

    Common Sense gun laws really mean total, 100% ban on guns. Meanwhile, celebrities, politicians, etc will continue to live in guarded, gated communities, and travel with body guards.

  5. #5
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    This is a tough, if not impossible issue to solve. If you ban guns, it will continue. If you don't ban guns, it will continue. The guns have been around for decades, but the mass shootings have not. I have mixed feelings about background checks, as they'll be required even for one family member to give another family member a gun.

    One thing is for sure, I can't stand seeing these yard signs in my area that call for "Common Sense Gun Laws." Ok, say we ban the so-called "Assault Guns." What happens when someone walks into an establishment with one or more revolvers and executes 6-12 innocent people? If it's a black shooter and black victims in Chicago, the story won't make CNN/MSNBC, but otherwise the next "discussion" will be for gun control on revolvers. Same thing with shot guns, or ANY other gun for that matter.

    Common Sense gun laws really mean total, 100% ban on guns. Meanwhile, celebrities, politicians, etc will continue to live in guarded, gated communities, and travel with body guards.
    No, "Common Sense" gun laws doesn't mean a % ban on gun. It means vetting those who want to own/possess gun to ensure they are not the type of individuals who should have any access to guns. IMO,as a minimum this means all gun owners need to register their guns, take a training course on gun safety and shooting proficiency as well as required periodic retraining/shooting, be subject to periodic background checks, and required to carry insurance on every gun they own.

    These requirements won't interfere with an individual's Second Amendment rights and almost anyone who wants to own a gun would be able to pass these simple requirements. It won't prevent hunters from owning hunting weapons, homeowners from owing weapons for home protection, people owning guns for sport/target shooting, etc. The background checks would eliminate gun ownership from those who have been convicted of gun violations/crimes, violent non-gun crimes, alcohol/drug abusers, domestic abusers, those with a mental illness who are deemed dangerous, and those on the terrorist watch list. For full disclosure, I don't own a gun (I used to have a .22 rifle back in the early 80s but I got rid of it) but if I wanted one I could buy it and go through the requirements I listed above to own a gun just like most people could do.

    The goal is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

  6. #6
    Senior Member LogDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Somewhere, Ca
    Posts
    810
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Agreed. My wife and I used to make frequent trips to that mall in El Paso when we were stationed at Holloman in the early 90s. Of course, that says a lot about being at Holloman and wanting to drive over an hour to go to a real mall.
    I was stationed at Cannon AFB and during Operation Desert Shield I back-filled at the Holloman AFB hospital for 80 days. You're right about having to travel an hour to El Paso to go to a real mall. It was the Cielo Vista Mall that I went to the couple of times I hit El Paso.

    At Cannon, we'd travel about 115 miles to go to a "real mall" in either Amarillo or Lubbock, Tx.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,573
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tough issue that is not easily solved, for sure.

    Even if one were to be in favor of a total gun ban...you have to recognize that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution and is a political impossibility to overturn.

    When people say "keep guns away from the mentally ill"...it opens up a lot of cans of worms. First, it would multiply the 'stigma' of getting mental health treatment. I'd imagine many servicemen, especially, refusing to seek treatment if they felt it could result in them losing their right to own firearms....many civilians also. Who gets to decide who is too ill to own guns? Psychologist puts in their recommendation? What if that psychologist doesn't believe anyone should own a gun? That they are always too dangerous? Is there a review process?

    I'm not sure, but I think most of these 'mass shooters' do not have a criminal background. So, they'd probably pass a background check anyway. Again, unless there is a 'mental ill' list, but that brings up these other problems.

    Was the TX shooter mentally ill, or was he a terrorist?
    The Voice of Reason

  8. #8
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,573
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)

    A defiant 8chan vowed to fight on, saying its “heartbeat is strong.” Then a tech firm knocked it offline


    The battle over white-supremacist and extremist content online surged into the tangled pipelines of the Web on Monday as jockeying among rival tech firms knocked the 8chan message board and other hate sites offline.

    It was unclear how long they’d stay unavailable to their followers as several players in the little-seen world of Internet service firms dug in to prevent the sites’ reappearance.

    Cloudflare for its “lawlessness” in the wake of the El Paso mass shooting, 8chan briefly disappeared from the Web early Monday before reappearing with the help of a sympathetic ally: BitMitigate, whose cybersecurity services also helped keep the neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer online after Cloudflare dropped it in 2017.
    But by Monday afternoon, both 8chan and the Daily Stormer plunged into darkness when Voxility, a tech firm that has leased servers to BitMitigate, announced that it would no longer provide those services. The site for Vancouver-based BitMitigate was also dropped offline.

    It’s “totally against our policy,” Maria Sirbu, a Voxility executive, told The Washington Post. “As soon as we were notified ... we proceeded with (completely) removing" the company from their network.
    She said Voxility was making a “firm stand” and urged that many other Internet authorities should take more action in “keeping the Internet a safer place.”
    Shortly after noon, Ron Watkins, 8chan’s administrator, said that the site was down and that it looked like its content-delivery network, provided by BitMitigate, was “under attack.” Minutes later, he said that BitMitigate had instead been “deplatformed for hosting 8chan.”
    The war drew attention to the role played by the Internet’s hidden infrastructure in deciding what ideas and content can circulate online. Most of the key players in Monday’s fight are unknown to consumers, but they run some of the critical elements supporting the modern Web.
    BitMitigate is owned by another company, Epik, a firm based outside Redmond, Wash., that bought the service earlier this year. Epik, a hosting and domain-name firm that gained notoriety after backing the far-right site Gab, has loudly criticized what it calls “digital censorship” and “organized efforts to de-platform and incapacitate practitioners of lawful free speech.”


    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...kdo?ocid=ientp
    Not a 'Freedom of Speech' issue, even if the content is protected speech...private companies are not obligated to provide a safe space for hate speech...interesting stuff though.

    Reminds of the 'Backpage' site from a few years ago that was taken down for hosting ads by sex traffickers...then Craigslist removed their "Personals" section for the same reason.
    The Voice of Reason

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    139
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    No, "Common Sense" gun laws doesn't mean a % ban on gun. It means vetting those who want to own/possess gun to ensure they are not the type of individuals who should have any access to guns. IMO,as a minimum this means all gun owners need to register their guns, take a training course on gun safety and shooting proficiency as well as required periodic retraining/shooting, be subject to periodic background checks, and required to carry insurance on every gun they own.

    These requirements won't interfere with an individual's Second Amendment rights and almost anyone who wants to own a gun would be able to pass these simple requirements. It won't prevent hunters from owning hunting weapons, homeowners from owing weapons for home protection, people owning guns for sport/target shooting, etc. The background checks would eliminate gun ownership from those who have been convicted of gun violations/crimes, violent non-gun crimes, alcohol/drug abusers, domestic abusers, those with a mental illness who are deemed dangerous, and those on the terrorist watch list. For full disclosure, I don't own a gun (I used to have a .22 rifle back in the early 80s but I got rid of it) but if I wanted one I could buy it and go through the requirements I listed above to own a gun just like most people could do.

    The goal is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
    Background checks will catch those with prior criminal backgrounds or other mental red flags, but will do nothing to stop a person with a clean record from committing a future crime.

    Gun registration does NOTHING to stop gun crimes. In Clark County, NV you used to have to register any handgun owned in that county. CC finally repealed that law because it was a joke. It did NOTHING to prevent a would-be criminal (or law abiding citizen) from committing a future crime. You know what gun registration does though? It provides a future government with the ability to identify who to confiscate guns from, when it's decided to do so. Of course, the bad guys get to keep their guns because, you know, they never registered theirs to begin with.

    Now, let's get back to the domestic crimes. What constitutes getting on this list, a simple phone call to the police from a disgruntled wife/girlfriend who has a vendetta? Does this qualify to lose your Constitutionally protected right to own a gun? How about mental illness? What does this mean and who gets to decide? Does this apply to the chronically depressed individual who sought counseling and possibly anti-depressants to cope with the problem? Does this qualify to lose your Constitutionally protected right to own a gun? If so, forget the trip to the counselor, and forget the anti-depressants. Perhaps suicide is the better choice than to lose my 2nd Amend. freedoms. How about the terrorist watch list? How do you get on this list? There have been CHILDREN who were accidentally placed on these watch lists. Sounds like a nice way to circumvent the Constitution to take away someone's rights...and by whom, a POLITICIAN, the POLICE? Anyone other than the US Supreme Court?

    I'd like to see these gun crimes go away too, but so far the ONLY measures I see as viable are trained, armed citizens, security guards, cops, etc who can quickly respond.

    Oh yeah, insurance on guns? I have it. It's a personal decision to protect against theft. Not sure why you think it will reduce crimes though.
    Last edited by FLAPS; 08-05-2019 at 09:00 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    This is a tough, if not impossible issue to solve. If you ban guns, it will continue. If you don't ban guns, it will continue. The guns have been around for decades, but the mass shootings have not. I have mixed feelings about background checks, as they'll be required even for one family member to give another family member a gun.
    So true. I mean, how many of these mass shootings have we had, where THE SHOOTER BOUGHT the gun legally AND WENT THROUGH all the required checks..??

    My issue, especially with the one in El Paso, is how the shooter (according to the news) deliberately targeted it, because "IT was a soft target", meaning it was yet another gun free-zone..
    How many of these mass shootings HAVE been in gun-free zones (so called)??

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    One thing is for sure, I can't stand seeing these yard signs in my area that call for "Common Sense Gun Laws." Ok, say we ban the so-called "Assault Guns." What happens when someone walks into an establishment with one or more revolvers and executes 6-12 innocent people? If it's a black shooter and black victims in Chicago, the story won't make CNN/MSNBC, but otherwise the next "discussion" will be for gun control on revolvers. Same thing with shot guns, or ANY other gun for that matter.
    And who's "Common sense" are we using? As of tonight's wording, the Dayton shooter, had some how MODIFIED a pistol he bought into looking like an AR.. SO where the hell did he get the modification kit(s)? He also supposedly used a 100 round Drum magazine.. LAST I KNEW you needed a class (iirc) 3 license, that you get REAL INDEPTH checking for, to even acquire one..

    So what laws are they thinking of, that would have stopped him? Same with parkland, or many of the others.. Maybe what's needed is MORE ENFORCEMENT of the laws we already have.!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Common Sense gun laws really mean total, 100% ban on guns. Meanwhile, celebrities, politicians, etc will continue to live in guarded, gated communities, and travel with body guards.
    So true. There's times i've often wondered. IF the infinity gauntlet (marvel film/comics) was real, and i had it, and could do a "snap". IF I offered the liberal public this choice "I will snap and eliminate all these shootings simply by making it to where NO US Citizen could ever again hold, let alone shoot a firearm again, HOW MANY Of you would be instantly for it, and demanding i DO It"??

    I just wonder, how many would actually take a second and THINK.. HMM if no AMERICAN can use a gun, what's stoping MS-13, or any OTHER foreign gang, from just going ruffshod over the cops (since the now are disarmed)? Or Stopping China or other nations from invading us??
    OR WOULD THEY even think that far, and just let emotions rule the day..

    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    No, "Common Sense" gun laws doesn't mean a % ban on gun. It means vetting those who want to own/possess gun to ensure they are not the type of individuals who should have any access to guns. IMO,as a minimum this means all gun owners need to register their guns, take a training course on gun safety and shooting proficiency as well as required periodic retraining/shooting, be subject to periodic background checks, and required to carry insurance on every gun they own.

    These requirements won't interfere with an individual's Second Amendment rights and almost anyone who wants to own a gun would be able to pass these simple requirements.
    How can you claim it won't interfere with their 2nd amendment rights, when you are putting restrictions effectively, on who can own? Or don't you understand "shall not be infringed"??

    And as already mentioned, HOW MANY OF THESE SHOOTERS< have already PASSED those backround checks?

    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    The background checks would eliminate gun ownership from those who have been convicted of gun violations/crimes, violent non-gun crimes, alcohol/drug abusers, domestic abusers, those with a mental illness who are deemed dangerous, and those on the terrorist watch list
    Ok, and how many of these shooters HAD any of the above 'eliminating factors' (besides mental illnesses, which UNLESS we get rid of Hippa laws, STILL WOULD stop doctors from reporting that fact), AND STILL got the gun? HELL last i checked, already having a violence conviction, is a limiter on owning a gun, same with being a parolee.. And domestic violence convictee.. Such as that nut job who shot up the church in Texas.. THE AF DECLINED to report his conviction TO The authorities..

    So how's about charging those who FAIL TO DO that required dilligence, with being an accessory??

    Quote Originally Posted by LogDog View Post
    The goal is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
    And exactly who determines who shouldn't have them??

    Ive often seen folk push the "mental conditions" around, but NOT DEFINE what mental issues should be a blocker..

    Would all those who broke down in tears (and many still are) over trump's win, be considered mental? Would someone who's fully functioning with proper depression meds, be considered mental? Would trans-genders be considered mental??

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Tough issue that is not easily solved, for sure.

    Even if one were to be in favor of a total gun ban...you have to recognize that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution and is a political impossibility to overturn.

    When people say "keep guns away from the mentally ill"...it opens up a lot of cans of worms. First, it would multiply the 'stigma' of getting mental health treatment. I'd imagine many servicemen, especially, refusing to seek treatment if they felt it could result in them losing their right to own firearms....many civilians also. Who gets to decide who is too ill to own guns? Psychologist puts in their recommendation? What if that psychologist doesn't believe anyone should own a gun? That they are always too dangerous? Is there a review process?
    Valid point Bos. I've already heard of one person who got SCREWED OVER by his Ex-wife, just cause she's a spiteful bitch, by using those so called "Red-flag laws", when she told cops he was a nut case and should have his guns taken.. EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NEVER once even been to a mental health councelor of any sort (though SHE certainly had been, dozens of times, yet still HAD her two pistols)..
    He spent over 2 weeks fighting the cops and the courts before he got his guns back..

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Background checks will catch those with prior criminal backgrounds or other mental red flags, but will do nothing to stop a person with a clean record from committing a future crime.
    Nor will it catch those who DO have those criminal records, IF THOSE IN CHARGE of puttnig that info into the 'system', FAIL TO DO THEIR REQUIRED JOB and put it in, so when the backround checkers look, nothing's there!

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Of course, the bad guys get to keep their guns because, you know, they never registered theirs to begin with.
    Exactly. How many times have we seen news reports about gang members, being hauled off, with additional charges, for carrying a gun they DIDN'T LEGALLY BUY, that's NEVER BEEN Registered anywhere??

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    Does this qualify to lose your Constitutionally protected right to own a gun? How about mental illness? What does this mean and who gets to decide? Does this apply to the chronically depressed individual who sought counseling and possibly anti-depressants to cope with the problem? Does this qualify to lose your Constitutionally protected right to own a gun? If so, forget the trip to the counselor, and forget the anti-depressants.
    OR what about those with ADD/ADHD? Or Autistim/Aspegers? What of those who are Gender-fluid? I mean, if i can get locked up in a mental ward for claiming i identify as being napoleon, HOW IS IT that someone identifies with XXYZ gender not considered, mental??

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS View Post
    How about the terrorist watch list? How do you get on this list? There have been CHILDREN who were accidentally placed on these watch lists. Sounds like a nice way to circumvent the Constitution to take away someone's rights...and by whom, a POLITICIAN, the POLICE? Anyone other than the US Supreme Court?
    Not just that but do you know the HELL you have to go through, to get one's name OFF that list, even when it was accidentally put on it?!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •