More Thoughts & Prayers

[Spirit]

3 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

I don't know. Ask AnaheimBob, it's clearly his work.

 

I'd say that he's standing at the back of the parking lot waiting for back-up, but some would probably view that as being in poor taste.

 

 

[RallyMo]

27 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Nope, I am all for it.  

I still wonder why gun deaths seem more tragic than alcohol deaths.  Or, how school shootings with semi-automatic guns are more tragic than a majority of the other gun deaths annually.

I know and you know the answer to this. It's our media. It's sensationalism. It's ratings. It's that a story of 20 or so kids having their lives snuffed out is easier to package than 20 individual stories of kids being killed by gunfire.

It's related to what Geoff said. It's easier to oppose things that aren't tied to what we enjoy/serves us positively. Discussions like that demand self reflection that makes us uncomfortable. 

I think mandating breathalyzers in every new vehicle and in all vehicles operated by anyone convicted of a single DUI would be a great start, then give everyone else a certain number of years to get their cars retrofitted in order to pass state tests for road worthiness.

This would save lives.

[Adam]

8 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

I know and you know the answer to this. It's our media. It's sensationalism. It's ratings. It's that a story of 20 or so kids having their lives snuffed out is easier to package than 20 individual stories of kids being killed by gunfire.

It's related to what Geoff said. It's easier to oppose things that aren't tied to what we enjoy/serves us positively. Discussions like that demand self reflection that makes us uncomfortable. 

I think mandating breathalyzers in every new vehicle and in all vehicles operated by anyone convicted of a single DUI would be a great start, then give everyone else a certain number of years to get their cars retrofitted in order to pass state tests for road worthiness.

This would save lives.

I can see it now. This measure saves the life of a future mass shooter. Rally 2024 dead in the water. 

[RallyMo]

2 minutes ago, Adam said:

I can see it now. This measure saves the life of a future mass shooter. Rally 2024 dead in the water. 

Damn it!

[arch stanton]

2 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Here are some alcohol related numbers just for kids 18-24

Consequences—Researchers estimate that each year:

• 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor-vehicle crashes.²²
• 696,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.²³
• 97,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.²³
• Roughly 20 percent of college students meet the criteria for AUD.²⁴
• About 1 in 4 college students report academic consequences from drinking, including missing class, falling behind in class, doing poorly on exams or papers, and receiving lower grades overall.²⁵

I’m all for a ban on 18-24 year olds

[Jason]

5 hours ago, Mark68 said:

Ok...now that I've lobbed a couple of grenades (speaking of arms...should those also be legal or not for private citizens?...but I digress...), let me delve into how I really feel about this whole argument.

 

 

Cruz, Paddock, Kelley (Sutherland Springs), Roof (Charleston), Lanza (Sandy Hook), Holmes (Aurora), and many others guilty of committing these mass murders did so with guns that were obtained legally. In Lanza's case, IIRC, he got the guns from his mom. That's a problem.

To say that no laws would have prevented these crimes is patently false. If they didn't have access to guns such as AR-15s, they would not have been able to cause the level of carnage they did. Might they have chosen other methods of killing? Sure. But they probably would not have had the ability to do as much damage. If there was a law banning assault or military-style weapons (or whatever you want to call them), or limiting the capacity of magazines, things probably end up differently.

Without going into whether there were warning signs and whether the FBI fucked up in Cruz's case, there is another issue at play here. Even if there are warning signs, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED UNTIL THE TRIGGER WAS PULLED.

This goes toward another thought that I have regarding these situations: all people are law-abiding--until they are not. And, in this country, they are presumed innocent, which is the way it should be. This leads to a tragic truth about our society: if we allow everyone who has yet to commit a crime to have access to these types of weapons, some of them WILL inevitably commit crimes, but we can't prosecute someone Minority Report-style, before they have done so.

Now, with some of these perpetrators, there were "obvious" signs--mainly dealing with mental health and/or posts on social media. Unfortunately, mental health research and assistance is underfunded and those who suffer from it are stigmatized, making it less likely that those who have mental health issues will seek assistance. And we can't forcibly commit anyone (unless a close family member has the ability to do it) to a mental institution. So we, as a society or government, cannot take legal action (except in certain narrowly-defined cases) against someone for just saying something that is off or considered a general threat. So, even though there were warning signs in this guy's (Cruz') case, there may not have been more that could have been done by the FBI or ATF.

So, how to proceed? I don't think that throwing our hands in the air and declaring "nothing can be done" is a viable option. There are things that can be done.

1) Prohibit sale of clips that hold more than ten rounds (I'd like to make it even lower, but I believe that to be a non-starter).

2) Prohibit manufacture and sale of all guns that are (or can be reasonably modified into) semi-auto.

3) Background checks on ALL gun purchases/transfers. No exceptions.

4) Not sure how this can be implemented, but have part of the background check include some type of mental health evaluation.

5) All gun owners must have insurance for all guns in their possession.

6) All gun owners must have licensing and gun safety training.

7) We must find a way to fund research into cures for certain types of mental illness, along with ways to correctly diagnose and treat them.

8) Federal funding of research into causes of gun violence must be restored.

I'm sure nobody wants to see any more kids die. For that matter, I'm sure we don't want to see any more adults killed just because they want to be entertained or go to church. Proclaiming that nothing can be done does a disservice to our society. Enforcement of current laws is obviously not enough, because current laws were wholly inadequate to prevent these events from occurring.

You do realize the VA tech shooter killed over 30 with a 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Ban all semi autos? So just legislates gun’s away?

[InsideThePark]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

You do realize the VA tech shooter killed over 30 with a 9mm and .22 caliber handguns. Ban all semi autos? So just legislates gun’s away?

They've tried like hell to legislate abortion away at both the state and federal level.  Oftentimes people don't want others having access to things they aren't comfortable with.

[Tank]

walmart following the lead of dick's sporting goods.

https://news.walmart.com/2018/02/28/walmart-statement-on-firearms-policy

 

[Amazing Larry]

10 hours ago, Adam said:

Police say three of the four passengers in Manuelito’s vehicle were also arrested for outstanding warrants.

 

haha

Guess what's next...

[Jason]

5 hours ago, Tank said:

walmart following the lead of dick's sporting goods.

https://news.walmart.com/2018/02/28/walmart-statement-on-firearms-policy

 

I bought my first gun at a Wal Mart. I don’t think they’ve sold guns in California for a long time. 

[mtangelsfan]

9 hours ago, InsideThePark said:

They've tried like hell to legislate abortion away at both the state and federal level.  Oftentimes people don't want others having access to things they aren't comfortable with.

How well has that worked out for them?

[Glen]

25 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

How well has that worked out for them?

Pretty well in some areas.

[mtangelsfan]

34 minutes ago, Glen said:

Pretty well in some areas.

Not really.  Abortion rates have dropped naturally over the last few years.  Regardless, once you give folks a right, it is hard to take it away (unless you threaten their safety)

[Lou]

On February 28, 2018 at 7:30 AM, floplag said:

Yes i don't see these events happening at locations with famous people.  
Wonder why, could it be the fact that they HAVE armed personnel?  

You could be on to something 

[Lou]

19 hours ago, Mark68 said:

Ok...now that I've lobbed a couple of grenades (speaking of arms...should those also be legal or not for private citizens?...but I digress...), let me delve into how I really feel about this whole argument.

 

 

Cruz, Paddock, Kelley (Sutherland Springs), Roof (Charleston), Lanza (Sandy Hook), Holmes (Aurora), and many others guilty of committing these mass murders did so with guns that were obtained legally. In Lanza's case, IIRC, he got the guns from his mom. That's a problem.

To say that no laws would have prevented these crimes is patently false. If they didn't have access to guns such as AR-15s, they would not have been able to cause the level of carnage they did. Might they have chosen other methods of killing? Sure. But they probably would not have had the ability to do as much damage. If there was a law banning assault or military-style weapons (or whatever you want to call them), or limiting the capacity of magazines, things probably end up differently.

Without going into whether there were warning signs and whether the FBI fucked up in Cruz's case, there is another issue at play here. Even if there are warning signs, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED UNTIL THE TRIGGER WAS PULLED.

This goes toward another thought that I have regarding these situations: all people are law-abiding--until they are not. And, in this country, they are presumed innocent, which is the way it should be. This leads to a tragic truth about our society: if we allow everyone who has yet to commit a crime to have access to these types of weapons, some of them WILL inevitably commit crimes, but we can't prosecute someone Minority Report-style, before they have done so.

Now, with some of these perpetrators, there were "obvious" signs--mainly dealing with mental health and/or posts on social media. Unfortunately, mental health research and assistance is underfunded and those who suffer from it are stigmatized, making it less likely that those who have mental health issues will seek assistance. And we can't forcibly commit anyone (unless a close family member has the ability to do it) to a mental institution. So we, as a society or government, cannot take legal action (except in certain narrowly-defined cases) against someone for just saying something that is off or considered a general threat. So, even though there were warning signs in this guy's (Cruz') case, there may not have been more that could have been done by the FBI or ATF.

So, how to proceed? I don't think that throwing our hands in the air and declaring "nothing can be done" is a viable option. There are things that can be done.

1) Prohibit sale of clips that hold more than ten rounds (I'd like to make it even lower, but I believe that to be a non-starter).

2) Prohibit manufacture and sale of all guns that are (or can be reasonably modified into) semi-auto.

3) Background checks on ALL gun purchases/transfers. No exceptions.

4) Not sure how this can be implemented, but have part of the background check include some type of mental health evaluation.

5) All gun owners must have insurance for all guns in their possession.

6) All gun owners must have licensing and gun safety training.

7) We must find a way to fund research into cures for certain types of mental illness, along with ways to correctly diagnose and treat them.

8) Federal funding of research into causes of gun violence must be restored.

I'm sure nobody wants to see any more kids die. For that matter, I'm sure we don't want to see any more adults killed just because they want to be entertained or go to church. Proclaiming that nothing can be done does a disservice to our society. Enforcement of current laws is obviously not enough, because current laws were wholly inadequate to prevent these events from occurring.

@Tank

what did he say? 

[floplag]

Regarding this i am incredibly disturbed by the recent reports that there was sufficient police presence in the Fla incident that didnt act.  Of all the horrific failures ive read about in this case this might be the most egregious.  

I wont recount what ive read here as its not 100% unsubstantiated as anything more than rumor and innuendo at this point but it would seem that there was more than 1 officer present per some reports, and that there is the possibility that they were under orders to stand down by the sheriff. 

I think the thing that bothers me most about some of the more recent events is the epic failures to act, stop them, and respond accordingly. Combined with what i can only assume to be covering up of the facts in some cases such as Vegas where we still have no answers or knowledge of what was on the documentation found in the room. 

im not usually a giant conspiracy theorist, but i cant help but start to wonder if some of these arent being completely manufactured and manipulated.   The alternative is that these people are completely and utterly incompetent, which is perhaps even scarier if they are who we are supposed to count on to protect us after they take our rights. 

People really need to take a step back, get the emotion out of it, and think long term here.  This is all starting to smell a little wrong to me. 

[Jason]

9 minutes ago, floplag said:

Regarding this i am incredibly disturbed by the recent reports that there was sufficient police presence in the Fla incident that didnt act.  Of all the horrific failures ive read about in this case this might be the most egregious.  

I wont recount what ive read here as its not 100% unsubstantiated as anything more than rumor and innuendo at this point but it would seem that there was more than 1 officer present per some reports, and that there is the possibility that they were under orders to stand down by the sheriff. 

I think the thing that bothers me most about some of the more recent events is the epic failures to act, stop them, and respond accordingly. Combined with what i can only assume to be covering up of the facts in some cases such as Vegas where we still have no answers or knowledge of what was on the documentation found in the room. 

im not usually a giant conspiracy theorist, but i cant help but start to wonder if some of these arent being completely manufactured and manipulated.   The alternative is that these people are completely and utterly incompetent, which is perhaps even scarier if they are who we are supposed to count on to protect us after they take our rights. 

People really need to take a step back, get the emotion out of it, and think long term here.  This is all starting to smell a little wrong to me. 

Still not as bad as the NRA

[Amazing Larry]

Remember when the NRA blocked intersections, looted buildings, tore down statues and burned cars? Pepperidge Farm remembers. 

[red321]

30 minutes ago, floplag said:

im not usually a giant conspiracy theorist,

...but let me float a theory where an evil cabal arranged the massacre of 17 kids so they could steal our guns

[floplag]

26 minutes ago, Jason said:

Still not as bad as the NRA

I'm sorry who did the NRA kill or allow to be killed in this case?  
 

[floplag]

25 minutes ago, red321 said:

...but let me float a theory where an evil cabal arranged the massacre of 17 kids so they could steal our guns

A theory that has supporting circumstantial evidence.    Not exactly tin foil territory.  
To be clear though I'm not suggesting they made this person do what he did, I'm suggesting they didn't act when they should have to gain politically. 
Assuming the reports that officer(s) were on scene, there are only 2 plausible explanations as to why they didnt act, they were cowards or they were ordered not to. 

[Kevin]

I can tolerate dumbass 9/11 conspiracy theories for some reason, I don't know why. 

 

For Sandy Hook and other mass shootings conspiracies, I just want to kick people in the nuts when they float the idea out there.

[mtangelsfan]

Look, I wish it didn't happen either, but I believe that police are trained to get as much information as they can before engaging..

I am not sure if what they did was wrong or right, from the outside it makes them look like pussies but I am guessing it has more to do with training or lack thereof.

Also, as far as feds and cops knowing about this kid and doing nothing about it................ they deserve Kevin's kick in the nuts

and worse.

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Regarding this i am incredibly disturbed by the recent reports that there was sufficient police presence in the Fla incident that didnt act.  Of all the horrific failures ive read about in this case this might be the most egregious.  

I wont recount what ive read here as its not 100% unsubstantiated as anything more than rumor and innuendo at this point but it would seem that there was more than 1 officer present per some reports, and that there is the possibility that they were under orders to stand down by the sheriff. 

I think the thing that bothers me most about some of the more recent events is the epic failures to act, stop them, and respond accordingly. Combined with what i can only assume to be covering up of the facts in some cases such as Vegas where we still have no answers or knowledge of what was on the documentation found in the room. 

im not usually a giant conspiracy theorist, but i cant help but start to wonder if some of these arent being completely manufactured and manipulated.   The alternative is that these people are completely and utterly incompetent, which is perhaps even scarier if they are who we are supposed to count on to protect us after they take our rights. 

People really need to take a step back, get the emotion out of it, and think long term here.  This is all starting to smell a little wrong to me. 

 

50 minutes ago, red321 said:

...but let me float a theory where an evil cabal arranged the massacre of 17 kids so they could steal our guns

 

43 minutes ago, floplag said:

A theory that has supporting circumstantial evidence.    Not exactly tin foil territory.  
To be clear though I'm not suggesting they made this person do what he did, I'm suggesting they didn't act when they should have to gain politically. 
Assuming the reports that officer(s) were on scene, there are only 2 plausible explanations as to why they didnt act, they were cowards or they were ordered not to. 

So, do you think that the sheriff's office called in to some kind of cental conspiracy managing hotline and quickly rolled out their lack of response once it was ordered?

Please explain the logistics of your conspiracy here, given that you don't think the actual murderer is part of it.

[RallyMo]

16 minutes ago, Kevin said:

For Sandy Hook and other mass shootings conspiracies, I just want to kick people in the nuts when they float the idea out there.

Yep.

Ffffffff those people.