Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On September 18 2019 08:33 FFGenerations wrote: i feel like it's their culture that leads 3 boys (or any of most people) to go out and commit acts of crime poor people get by and live very happily without stealing, raping, and shooting each other you can be poor and not have a shitty fucking culture of crime and violence there are exceptions but the US isn't a place where people are shitting in the bushes and dying of malaria a dime a dozen or whatever don't give me shit about poverty when you got mobile phones, video games, take a shower every day in hot running water shitty crime- and violence- oriented cultures cause stuff like this to happen in the first place anyway we should be looking at individual motivations more i feel what's driving these people to commit crimes and causing people to get shot up 'poverty' isn't an answer
On September 18 2019 08:33 FFGenerations wrote: i feel like it's their culture that leads 3 boys (or any of most people) to go out and commit acts of crime poor people get by and live very happily without stealing, raping, and shooting each other you can be poor and not have a shitty fucking culture of crime and violence there are exceptions but the US isn't a place where people are shitting in the bushes and dying of malaria a dime a dozen or whatever don't give me shit about poverty when you got mobile phones, video games, take a shower every day in hot running water shitty crime- and violence- oriented cultures cause stuff like this to happen in the first place anyway we should be looking at individual motivations more i feel what's driving these people to commit crimes and causing people to get shot up 'poverty' isn't an answer
Who's culture are you referring to?
I was wondering this also, I was inferring that a culture of hot water, video games, and mobile phones was allegedly the culprit? or something?
On September 18 2019 18:41 Simberto wrote: I think the point is less whether the person at the house was justified to shoot them, and more that it is still a tragedy that three teens were shot. And maybe that wouldn't have happened if people didn't have guns.
On September 18 2019 12:42 Danglars wrote: Multiple people already stole the words out of my mouth. Defense within the home from armed burglars isn’t close to an edge case for me. Hopefully more teens will have fresh example not to forcibly break and enter in that area, knowing they may be taking their lives into their hands in doing so. The real tragedy would have been dead or wounded law abiding citizens in that house, and a gang of teens emboldened to get another high from stealing somebody else’s stuff in masks with a gun.
Three dead children probably counts as the real tragedy, even if they were dumb children doing something selfish and irresponsible. Their lives had value and now that value is gone. At the very least they represented a huge investment by society, far in excess of what they hoped to steal, that will never generate a return.
Also, by now I would really hope that educated people would have figured out that harsher punishments don't reduce crime. The next group of teens is not going to think, we better not do that because they might have guns. They are going to think, we better all have guns and bigger ones then them. Maybe we should even shoot first before they get a chance to shoot us back.
This is a couple of miles from where I live. Imagine how bad this could have been if he'd had easy access to a gun. This is a very busy mall with thousands of people around at all times.
This is a pretty crazy article about how easy it is to manufacture AR style rifles and how the current laws are not equipped to deal with them. It is about a guy who sort of legally manufactures AR style rifles and sells them to felons, mentally unstable and other people who wouldn't normally be able to buy them. Eventually the ATF arrested him but then recently just let him go because it appeared the judge was going to rule in favor of him and bust these loop holes wide open. I was aware of how easy it was to legally buy weapons. I had not idea how easy it was for felons and so on to skirt the few rules their are to basically legally buy the same type.
On October 12 2019 20:21 JimmiC wrote: This is a pretty crazy article about how easy it is to manufacture AR style rifles and how the current laws are not equipped to deal with them. It is about a guy who sort of legally manufactures AR style rifles and sells them to felons, mentally unstable and other people who wouldn't normally be able to buy them. Eventually the ATF arrested him but then recently just let him go because it appeared the judge was going to rule in favor of him and bust these loop holes wide open. I was aware of how easy it was to legally buy weapons. I had not idea how easy it was for felons and so on to skirt the few rules their are to basically legally buy the same type.
I'm pretty sure I've posted repeatedly in this thread how easy it is to manufacture Ar-15 rifles and how easy it is to skirt the current gun control rules in place.
You should also know its entierly legal to own a tank and all you need to own tank shells grenades or rockets is to pay a $500 dollar or something stamp tax and properly fill out some forms.
On October 12 2019 20:21 JimmiC wrote: This is a pretty crazy article about how easy it is to manufacture AR style rifles and how the current laws are not equipped to deal with them. It is about a guy who sort of legally manufactures AR style rifles and sells them to felons, mentally unstable and other people who wouldn't normally be able to buy them. Eventually the ATF arrested him but then recently just let him go because it appeared the judge was going to rule in favor of him and bust these loop holes wide open. I was aware of how easy it was to legally buy weapons. I had not idea how easy it was for felons and so on to skirt the few rules their are to basically legally buy the same type.
I'm pretty sure I've posted repeatedly in this thread how easy it is to manufacture Ar-15 rifles and how easy it is to skirt the current gun control rules in place.
You should also know its entierly legal to own a tank and all you need to own tank shells grenades or rockets is to pay a $500 dollar or something stamp tax and properly fill out some forms.
Tanks aren't a problem in that sense though. You don't exactly have any subtlety or surprise elements on your side if you try to start something with a tank. They're also quite a lot more expensive. Although, it would be much more useful in the scenario where the US government becomes tyrannical overnight and they need to be fought in a war where you're not on their side. Shame more people don't have them.
Sadly 2 are dead a 14 year old boy and 16 year old girl and 3 others injured one gravely the shooter who shot himself in the head after shooting the others. This was in santa clarita cali today.
On November 16 2019 00:48 redlightdistrict wrote: CBS jsut interviewed two of the kids that were there during the shooting this morning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf9KAIUOuXA They seem to be a fount of information but still under duress, maybe they are developing early signs of PTSD?.
I'd be surprised if an event like that didn't cause some form of ptsd
Interesting quote I found from an British writer (Toland) from 1699. It's basically the exact same gun control debate that we have today. This debate truly goes on ad infinitum lol.
"I am for ARMING ALL THE PEOPLE. ... For what can better demonstrate the Confidence his Majesty places in the unquestionable Affection of his Subjects, or more encrease and confirm the Veneration on these have for him, than that he puts 'em in a Condition of defending themselves against all his and their Enemies, without needing or expecting the Assistance of others? But notwithstanding I took all possible care to be duly inform'd, I could never hear any weighty Objection made to this Proposition, tho two are commonly offer'd, and the first of 'em is, that there will be no end of Robberies, and House-breakings in the Country, if the common People be once arm'd. I perceive these Gentlemen design to be popular, and the Vulgar are hugely oblig'd to 'em for their good Opinion. But supposing the worst, Robberies will be so far from being more frequent than at this time, that this is the only right Method of totally suppressing all such Disorders. It is an ordinary thing for two or three Fellows to commit a Robbery in sight of twenty People, stronger and stouter than themselves, but that are either without Arms, or know not how to use 'em; whereas, upon the foot of our MODEL, when any House or Persons are known to be attack'd, they are not only provided for their own Defence, but the Neighbours are all ready to come in to their Assistance, both with Arms in their hands, and as able to handle 'em as House-breakers can be suppos'd to do. But if the objecting Gentlemen have any meaning, it is that Rogues only should have Arms, and honest Men none to oppose them: For when any are dispos'd to violate the Laws, they always take care to arm themselves without any deference to Publick Authority; nor do we find that Thieves ever want Weapons, notwithstanding any Prohibitions to the contrary, which they no more regard than they do those which forbid 'em to steal. But good Men, on the contrary, will yield Obedience to the Laws; and so be expos'd, if thus left naked and unarm'd, to the Insults and Assaults of the most determin'd Villains."
They were using flintlock muskets back then, how would you stop a robbery with one of those? If you missed the intuder with your one and only shot, you'd be screwed. But then again he didn't specifically mention rifles, so swords were probably implied.
On November 22 2019 04:33 Doodsmack wrote: Interesting quote I found from an British writer (Toland) from 1699. It's basically the exact same gun control debate that we have today. This debate truly goes on ad infinitum lol.
"I am for ARMING ALL THE PEOPLE. ... For what can better demonstrate the Confidence his Majesty places in the unquestionable Affection of his Subjects, or more encrease and confirm the Veneration on these have for him, than that he puts 'em in a Condition of defending themselves against all his and their Enemies, without needing or expecting the Assistance of others? But notwithstanding I took all possible care to be duly inform'd, I could never hear any weighty Objection made to this Proposition, tho two are commonly offer'd, and the first of 'em is, that there will be no end of Robberies, and House-breakings in the Country, if the common People be once arm'd. I perceive these Gentlemen design to be popular, and the Vulgar are hugely oblig'd to 'em for their good Opinion. But supposing the worst, Robberies will be so far from being more frequent than at this time, that this is the only right Method of totally suppressing all such Disorders. It is an ordinary thing for two or three Fellows to commit a Robbery in sight of twenty People, stronger and stouter than themselves, but that are either without Arms, or know not how to use 'em; whereas, upon the foot of our MODEL, when any House or Persons are known to be attack'd, they are not only provided for their own Defence, but the Neighbours are all ready to come in to their Assistance, both with Arms in their hands, and as able to handle 'em as House-breakers can be suppos'd to do. But if the objecting Gentlemen have any meaning, it is that Rogues only should have Arms, and honest Men none to oppose them: For when any are dispos'd to violate the Laws, they always take care to arm themselves without any deference to Publick Authority; nor do we find that Thieves ever want Weapons, notwithstanding any Prohibitions to the contrary, which they no more regard than they do those which forbid 'em to steal. But good Men, on the contrary, will yield Obedience to the Laws; and so be expos'd, if thus left naked and unarm'd, to the Insults and Assaults of the most determin'd Villains."
A U.S. sailor fatally shot two civilian Defense Department employees and wounded a third at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii before killing himself, military officials said.
Rear Admiral Robert Chadwick said the civilian shipyard worker who was wounded was stable. The gunman has been tentatively identified as an active duty sailor assigned to a submarine, he said.
"We have no indication yet whether they were targeted or if it was a random shooting," Chadwick said.
The shooting happened around 2:30 p.m. at Dry Dock 2 in the shipyard at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Navy Region Hawaii spokeswoman Lydia Robertson said. The shooting forced the base into lockdown, but the scene has been secured.
One witness who did not give his name told NBC affiliate KHNL of Honolulu in a phone interview that he was at his desk and heard loud pops that he thought to be gunshots and looked out the window to see a person he thought was a shooter point a gun at his head and fire.
This is the biggest gun related Innocent in Hawaii since Pearl Harbor.
Worth noting that our soldiers have been killing themselves and each other at a greater rate than enemies have been killing them. Just as domestic home grown terrorists are killing more US civilians than any country we're bombing. Just as guns more often kill their owners or the people they were meant to defend at the civilian level.
The US should be internationally sanctioned until it can get it's shit together imo.
A U.S. sailor fatally shot two civilian Defense Department employees and wounded a third at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii before killing himself, military officials said.
Rear Admiral Robert Chadwick said the civilian shipyard worker who was wounded was stable. The gunman has been tentatively identified as an active duty sailor assigned to a submarine, he said.
"We have no indication yet whether they were targeted or if it was a random shooting," Chadwick said.
The shooting happened around 2:30 p.m. at Dry Dock 2 in the shipyard at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Navy Region Hawaii spokeswoman Lydia Robertson said. The shooting forced the base into lockdown, but the scene has been secured.
One witness who did not give his name told NBC affiliate KHNL of Honolulu in a phone interview that he was at his desk and heard loud pops that he thought to be gunshots and looked out the window to see a person he thought was a shooter point a gun at his head and fire.
Gun related incident and a tragedy, and sure to prompt more discussion of workplace violence and the stresses of military service, but would you really call it a mass shooting? I know definitions vary and I wonder which one you use.
A U.S. sailor fatally shot two civilian Defense Department employees and wounded a third at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii before killing himself, military officials said.
Rear Admiral Robert Chadwick said the civilian shipyard worker who was wounded was stable. The gunman has been tentatively identified as an active duty sailor assigned to a submarine, he said.
"We have no indication yet whether they were targeted or if it was a random shooting," Chadwick said.
The shooting happened around 2:30 p.m. at Dry Dock 2 in the shipyard at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Navy Region Hawaii spokeswoman Lydia Robertson said. The shooting forced the base into lockdown, but the scene has been secured.
One witness who did not give his name told NBC affiliate KHNL of Honolulu in a phone interview that he was at his desk and heard loud pops that he thought to be gunshots and looked out the window to see a person he thought was a shooter point a gun at his head and fire.
Gun related incident and a tragedy, and sure to prompt more discussion of workplace violence and the stresses of military service, but would you really call it a mass shooting? I know definitions vary and I wonder which one you use.
I thought the conventional definition was 4 or more casualties (injured or dead, including the shooter) during the incident? If so, this cleanly fits within that definition.
A U.S. sailor fatally shot two civilian Defense Department employees and wounded a third at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii before killing himself, military officials said.
Rear Admiral Robert Chadwick said the civilian shipyard worker who was wounded was stable. The gunman has been tentatively identified as an active duty sailor assigned to a submarine, he said.
"We have no indication yet whether they were targeted or if it was a random shooting," Chadwick said.
The shooting happened around 2:30 p.m. at Dry Dock 2 in the shipyard at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Navy Region Hawaii spokeswoman Lydia Robertson said. The shooting forced the base into lockdown, but the scene has been secured.
One witness who did not give his name told NBC affiliate KHNL of Honolulu in a phone interview that he was at his desk and heard loud pops that he thought to be gunshots and looked out the window to see a person he thought was a shooter point a gun at his head and fire.
Gun related incident and a tragedy, and sure to prompt more discussion of workplace violence and the stresses of military service, but would you really call it a mass shooting? I know definitions vary and I wonder which one you use.
I think the most common definition is 4 or more injured/dead not counting the shooter so no, this might technically not be a mass shooting. But when you have enough incidents happening frequently enough that you need to discuss the finer points of what counts as a 'mass' shooting its just as big a sign that there is a problem.
A U.S. sailor fatally shot two civilian Defense Department employees and wounded a third at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in Hawaii before killing himself, military officials said.
Rear Admiral Robert Chadwick said the civilian shipyard worker who was wounded was stable. The gunman has been tentatively identified as an active duty sailor assigned to a submarine, he said.
"We have no indication yet whether they were targeted or if it was a random shooting," Chadwick said.
The shooting happened around 2:30 p.m. at Dry Dock 2 in the shipyard at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Navy Region Hawaii spokeswoman Lydia Robertson said. The shooting forced the base into lockdown, but the scene has been secured.
One witness who did not give his name told NBC affiliate KHNL of Honolulu in a phone interview that he was at his desk and heard loud pops that he thought to be gunshots and looked out the window to see a person he thought was a shooter point a gun at his head and fire.
Gun related incident and a tragedy, and sure to prompt more discussion of workplace violence and the stresses of military service, but would you really call it a mass shooting? I know definitions vary and I wonder which one you use.
I think the most common definition is 4 or more injured/dead not counting the shooter so no, this might technically not be a mass shooting. But when you have enough incidents happening frequently enough that you need to discuss the finer points of what counts as a 'mass' shooting its just as big a sign that there is a problem.
It's 4 including the shooter. However like you said it doesn't really matter in the first place. It's still part of the same problem, and people who doesn't want to accept this shitty reality we live in will use another definition which excludes it anyways, since there's not really any one official one.
Tho this is one of those few cases where you can't really blame guns. Or rather, you can't do much about it. It's not like we can start taking away guns from the military..
