ADVERTISEMENT

Mass shooting at FedEx facility in Indy

I'm not sure there is a magic bullet so to speak.
I'm somewhat supportive of Ranger's position that centerfire semi-auto long guns should be kept at a shooting range.
But I have this feeling that this wouldn't be the end game.
What's your recommendation?
BTW, weren't you judging someone by their appearance in your previous post?

I'll give it a shot.

I think it's a good start to increase the financial consequences as suggested by McMurtry (who foolishly hates my guts for no reason, by the way). Immunity should be ended and civil liability should certainly be enhanced for gun manufacturers, but the civil liability for gun shows, retail gun dealers, and private citizens who sell guns improperly should also be increased. Those are extremely broad outlets for guns if not regulated better. Trading in guns is legal but should be better regulated to make it more difficult for guns to disappear into the tall grass of crime. Dealing in cars, real estate, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, legal services, financial services and a bizillion other products is legal too but also highly regulated more than gun transactions.

It would also be helpful to increase the financial consequences to those who commit gun crimes. I believe there already are laws on the books that prohibit a criminal from profiting from the crime, i.e., providing for example that a murderer who kills his wife and kids has automatically forfeited his rights to the profits from any books, movies etc. about that crime he would otherwise receive. That's a straightforward property forfeiture. There should also be laws that hold a gun criminal has forfeited his rights to transfer property to his loved ones by committing gun crimes and causing financial harm to others. Hole killed eight people and wounded five others -- that's a lot of financial damage he caused others. But, so far as I know, nothing prevents Hole's relatives from inheriting whatever property, accounts, vehicles etc. or life insurance he may have while little or nothing goes to the families of his victims. I believe something like this is already the law in countries afflicted by chronic terrorism, to prevent the families of terrorists from being rewarded by the terrorism organizers. Murderers like Hole should know in advance that their families are going to suffer financial consequences from his acts -- just like his victims.

Civil liability can be effective, i.e., see People v. The Klan. Our efforts should not end with these suggestions.
 
Enjoy Saturday night in your Streeterville hidey hole, I’m almost positive you won’t encounter any violent crime.

My CPD brother unfortunately can’t say the same. No one I know that actually has experienced all this city has to offer can say the same.

I’ll speak to you later.

Meanwhile...

 
I'll give it a shot.

I think it's a good start to increase the financial consequences as suggested by McMurtry (who foolishly hates my guts for no reason, by the way). Immunity should be ended and civil liability should certainly be enhanced for gun manufacturers, but the civil liability for gun shows, retail gun dealers, and private citizens who sell guns improperly should also be increased. Those are extremely broad outlets for guns if not regulated better. Trading in guns is legal but should be better regulated to make it more difficult for guns to disappear into the tall grass of crime. Dealing in cars, real estate, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, legal services, financial services and a bizillion other products is legal too but also highly regulated more than gun transactions.

It would also be helpful to increase the financial consequences to those who commit gun crimes. I believe there already are laws on the books that prohibit a criminal from profiting from the crime, i.e., providing for example that a murderer who kills his wife and kids has automatically forfeited his rights to the profits from any books, movies etc. about that crime he would otherwise receive. That's a straightforward property forfeiture. There should also be laws that hold a gun criminal has forfeited his rights to transfer property to his loved ones by committing gun crimes and causing financial harm to others. Hole killed eight people and wounded five others -- that's a lot of financial damage he caused others. But, so far as I know, nothing prevents Hole's relatives from inheriting whatever property, accounts, vehicles etc. or life insurance he may have while little or nothing goes to the families of his victims. I believe something like this is already the law in countries afflicted by chronic terrorism, to prevent the families of terrorists from being rewarded by the terrorism organizers. Murderers like Hole should know in advance that their families are going to suffer financial consequences from his acts -- just like his victims.

Civil liability can be effective, i.e., see People v. The Klan. Our efforts should not end with these suggestions.
On your 2nd paragraph, I havent thought about that part enough to offer a sufficient response.
On the 1st paragraph, I would have to see the estimates as to what this would do to the cost of firearms. I'm fairly confident that it wouldn't have a negative consequence on my ability to purchase what I want. I just don't want to see it get to the point where it becomes some "elite" vs "peasant" as to who can afford to purchase a gun to hunt.
 
Mental health is at its worst levels since the Depression. Everyone feels at risk to become a sacrificed pawn or a victim of an uncontrollable airborne death. To be socially-acceptable, you have to acknowledge helplessness and dependence on The Man.

Personal finances are shaky.

Media focuses on the worst-possible angles when they don’t engage in out-right politicized lying

Employment laws have made individual achievement meaningless and most unions are run by idiots and bullies at local and regional levels.

Social media has made the personal insult a badge of honor.

Religion is derided

So the weak minded get angry and shoot people to lash out

And we call it a “gun problem”

Until mental health professionals and background checkers combine to keep guns out of the hands of the weak-minded, it shall continue

In the bleak midwinter ...
To your point about social media, it is my view that people online don't consider other people real people. It's why they say things online they never would out in the real world. They don't value others online as real.
 
It's absolutely incredible that you people strut around acting like our moral superiors.
Lmao look in the mirror the entire last year of blm, racial matters, conservative attacks. Moral superiors??? After the last year’s worth of morality nonsense. Woke culture. On and on. And you have the temerity to call out our pointing out harris’ hypocrisy. Good grief. Get an ounce of self awareness. Do you read your own posts? To write what you just wrote you must have yourself on ignore.
 
Last edited:
Lmao look in the mirror the entire last year of blm, racial matters, conservative attacks. Moral superiors??? After the last year’s worth of morality nonsense. Woke culture. On and on. And you have the temerity to call out our pointing out harris’ hypocrisy. Good grief. Get an ounce of self awareness
Don't change the subject. Over and over and over and over again when liberals on this forum attacked conservative women using looks and sex, I lambasted them, and said it was cheap and inappropriate. Lots of people gave my posts likes for that. I think you were one of them.

Step up to the plate. You should have called JDB's shitty post out for what it was. You failed.
 
Don't change the subject. Over and over and over and over again when liberals on this forum attacked conservative women using looks and sex, I lambasted them, and said it was cheap and inappropriate. Lots of people gave my posts likes for that. I think you were one of them.

Step up to the plate. You should have called JDB's shitty post out for what it was. You failed.
I’m not the board’s police to call him out. I’m responding to your post to me. My condemnation is on harris being a phony. I don’t give two shits if she’s banging uncle mark on the side. Means nothing to me. She’s an adult
 
Again:

Then you should have ignored him. You made yourself part of it. Don't try to cop out now.
It’s not registering with you. I’m not A PART of anything bc I don’t care. Her being called a name is meaningless to me. Her promiscuity or lack there of is meaningless to me. I don’t know why anyone cares. I don’t like her on the merits. I think she’s a race baiter and a phony.
 
It’s not registering with you. I’m not A PART of anything bc I don’t care. Her being called a name is meaningless to me. Her promiscuity or lack there of is meaningless to me. I don’t know why anyone cares
You didn't say that to JDB. You said, "They're all phony." Implicitly endorsing his criticism. So, again:

Then you should have ignored him. You made yourself part of it. Don't try to cop out now.

Own up to your failings, or you'll never grow.
 
You didn't say that to JDB. You said, "They're all phony." Implicitly endorsing his criticism. So, again:

Then you should have ignored him. You made yourself part of it. Don't try to cop out now.

Own up to your failings, or you'll never grow.
Absolutely. They’re all phony. If she wasn’t she’d be in Chicago tomorrow figuring out how to stop kids from being killed.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT