Mass Shooting & Gun Violence catch-all | Kentucky Sheriff kills KY Judge in courthouse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 518
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
It seems like Vance is walking the walk there. He is saying that you can’t stop shootings so act accordingly.

I mean his words are outrageous. But that particular photo doesn’t really seem to be a gotcha.
He has the luxury of taking precautions not available to others. And needed measures could be taken to protect others except the people who can affect that change - politicians like him - won’t do it in order to retain power.
That’s the problem I see when I look at the photo.
 
Horseshit toxic masculinity leans you in that misogynistic direction. Did you get taught by your Diddy to kill babies and be a man. Why is that thought in your own head. Therapy is good.
You insult me. I'm a misanthrope. I believe in equal opportunity to hate on someone's lame ass regardless of their sex.

No, I wasn't taught anything like that by my daddy. He was killed in a construction accident when I was 13 months. My granddaddy didn't either although we did eat many needed meals provided by a rod or gun.

Why don't you contemplate why you would say something like that to someone you don't know while you have coitus with yourself?
 
Locking up every parent whose kid does this may actually make a few of them second guess giving their kid a weapon of war.
It's the only reasonably available tool on the table. It might also spark real conversation about gun reform.

And not just parents. If a firearm purchased by a person is used in a crime and that firearm was not properly secured leading to the theft of the firearm and the eventual crime, then the owner of the firearm should be convicted of aiding and abetting the crime at minimum.

Make firearm owners (of which I am one though only because I inherited them) responsible for them. They will either be a LOT better about securing the weapons or they will not own them if we have actual consequences. Right now, I'm far more responsible for the actions of my dogs than gun owners are for their weapons and their children.
 
There are plenty of ways to get around a dog. Not going to go into them, but dogs can be disabled just like humans.
If a burglar is messing with your back door trying to break into your house and your dog hears him and starts barking his head off, how is a burglar going to get around that? A dog can sense a person’s intent. If someone means harm to you, your dog will know it in an instant.
 
If a burglar is messing with your back door trying to break into your house and your dog hears him and starts barking his head off, how is a burglar going to get around that? A dog can sense a person’s intent. If someone means harm to you, your dog will know it in an instant.
The burglar can get inside and kill the dog. Or pepper spray it. Also, some people don't have the time and money to spend on a dog. If you are only buying a dog to serve as a means for protection, that dog is going to have a miserable life.
 
Not before the dog makes a lot of noise.
Sure, if the burglar cares. Some don't. Also, as I said to Patb78, some people don't have the time and money to devote to a dog. A gun is a one-time expense that can be locked in a secure safe and forgotten about. Dogs are recurring expenses and very time consuming. Live by yourself? You will have to pay someone to come take care of your dog every day while you are at work. Travel for work? Travel for fun? Same thing. Dog food, vet bills, dog sitters, etc...all add up.
 
Meanwhile...






 
The burglar can get inside and kill the dog. Or pepper spray it. Also, some people don't have the time and money to spend on a dog. If you are only buying a dog to serve as a means for protection, that dog is going to have a miserable life.
I never said that dumbass. There is nothing you can tell me about dogs. And as for pepper spray, the dog will start barking well before the burglar is close enough to spray it. A dog is a companion that gives unconditional love. They bring great joy into their owners’ lives. A burglar alarm is a small side benefit.
 
I never said that dumbass. There is nothing you can tell me about dogs. And as for pepper spray, the dog will start barking well before the burglar is close enough to spray it. A dog is a companion that gives unconditional love. They bring great joy into their owners’ lives. A burglar alarm is a small side benefit.
I agree that a dog is a companion that gives unconditional love. I love my dogs. Not everyone has the time or money for a dog, though. Some landlords don't allow dogs or charge expensive fees to have animals. "Just get a dog" is not a valid option for a lot of people. Also, some burglars don't give a shit if a dog makes noise.
 
Meanwhile...






The problem is that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence but little in the way of real studies. The Republicans have done their best to keep that from happening and the CDC has been running scared for years so people like John Lott and the NRA can get away with their propaganda.



The Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1997 omnibus spending bill of the United States federal government that mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."<a href="Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.<a href="Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>

The amendment was lobbied for by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), and named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.<a href="Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a> Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.<a href="Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a> Congress clarified the law in 2018 to allow for such research, and the FY2020 federal omnibus spending bill earmarked the first funding for it since 1996.<a href="Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a><a href="Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a>
 
The problem is that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence but little in the way of real studies. The Republicans have done their best to keep that from happening and the CDC has been running scared for years so people like John Lott and the NRA can get away with their propaganda.

Agreed, and I don't know the best way to get good statistics about defensive gun usage. The estimates are all over the place depending on the source you use. Part of the problem is that most defensive uses of firearms end without any shots being fired. That's what happened in my case. The police came out and filed a report, but I have no idea if it mentions a firearm or not. From my experience with police reports, they can tend to be pretty vague. Perhaps some police departments could attempt to start collecting data about defensive gun usage so that it could be analyzed down the road. Maybe add a little check box to the report: "Was a firearm brandished in this incident? If so, by whom?"
 
It's the only reasonably available tool on the table. It might also spark real conversation about gun reform.

And not just parents. If a firearm purchased by a person is used in a crime and that firearm was not properly secured leading to the theft of the firearm and the eventual crime, then the owner of the firearm should be convicted of aiding and abetting the crime at minimum.

Make firearm owners (of which I am one though only because I inherited them) responsible for them. They will either be a LOT better about securing the weapons or they will not own them if we have actual consequences. Right now, I'm far more responsible for the actions of my dogs than gun owners are for their weapons and their children.
This is another reason why the gun lobby does not want there to be a national registry. If I sell my gun under the table and then it ends up in the hands of a criminal who uses it to kill someone, I bear responsibility and I should be charged with SOMETHING.

The only reasons to not have a registry are this reason and to allow total nut jobs who are armed to the teeth like Rambo to keep their Ruby Ridge type arsenals off the grid.
 
It's a bit of a digression, but concerning CDC and their research, there were numerous discussions about what they did and didn't do during Covid and very few people stopped to realize that the answer was in large part, what Congress would and wouldn't fund them to do.
 
Meanwhile...






Meanwhile, kids are dying a lot more from gun violence than criminals breaking into homes. And you don't need an assault weapon for protection or hunting. You are ridiculous.
 
Meanwhile, kids are dying a lot more from gun violence than criminals breaking into homes. And you don't need an assault weapon for protection or hunting. You are ridiculous.
Where does the post you quoted say anything about assault weapons? And kids are dying from gang-related gun violence, which is something I addressed earlier. A cultural change is needed. A couple of generations ago, it was socially acceptable in large parts of the country to literally terrorize Black people, to hurl epithets at them and to legally segregate them. We still have racists, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as they were prior to and during the Civil Rights Movement. Southern White culture changed. We need to do the same thing to gang culture. Shun it, call it out until it is in the shadows rather than in the mainstream.
 
Where does the post you quoted say anything about assault weapons? And kids are dying from gang-related gun violence, which is something I addressed earlier. A cultural change is needed. A couple of generations ago, it was socially acceptable in large parts of the country to literally terrorize Black people, to hurl epithets at them and to legally segregate them. We still have racists, but they are nowhere near as prevalent as they were prior to and during the Civil Rights Movement. Southern White culture changed. We need to do the same thing to gang culture. Shun it, call it out until it is in the shadows rather than in the mainstream.

Asking honestly...do we need to also shun gun culture? I think gun culture in magazines, websites, advertising, gun shows, etc is far more responsible for overall levels of gun violence than gang culture. I'm not even disagreeing about gangs, but I think that there are bigger fish to fry.
 
Back
Top