Every 20 something yahoo on the south side will now be packing in the mall. This ends very badly.
Shooting at Greenwood Mall
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
I just showed you it’s possible carry out a really lethal mass shooting with nothing but a pistol. You can say “well, that won’t happen again” but that’s nothing but conjecture on your part.
And the pistol is a lot easier to handle, faster to reload, and much deadlier at close range.
How is that not an even trade off?
Eat one that's worth it: http://www.sublimedoughnuts.com/doughnuts/.
That didn't take long.
That’s absolutely not what I said. Read it again.
So we should just do nothing then? Just accept that we are a failed society where heavily armed citizens will slaughter other citizens in public places, and the only response is that we all arm up to shoot the would be killers? That’s the answer?
Just because it didn't suck as much as it could have sucked doesn't make it a happy ending at all.
And, police are saying the husband who was killed was armed, himself, just like this guy:
Wild Bill Hickok is murdered | August 2, 1876 | HISTORY
“Wild Bill” Hickok, one of the greatest gunfighters of the American West, is murdered in Deadwood, South Dakota. Born in Illinois in 1837, James Butler “Wild Bill” Hickok first gained notoriety as a gunfighter in 1861 when he coolly shot three men who were trying to kill him. A highly...
www.history.com
Arming everybody is no substitute for gun control.
P.S.: learn to spell "wacko." (Baby steps toward dazzling us.)
But, by emphasizing "weak bonds" and "previous gun crimes", your post ignores all of the mass shootings committed by young white shooters with no priors.
Until you address that, you're just fishing for reasons to blame Democrats for all the shootings, based on statistics that ignore the young white shooters.
Is there a solution that would reduce both kinds of gun violence? Yeah, reduce the availability of guns and then you won't have to worry as much whether bond is high enough or whether gun permit applicants need mental health examinations, liability insurance etc. and, also, from that, you won't have to worry about which underfunded branch of government has to pay to house the prisoners who can't make bail or to pay the mental health professionals.
I assume you mean California above? If so, yes they have the 2nd highest TOTAL but one of the lowest RATES of firearm related homicide or death.
It's a good question. The "why" though is where it can get problematic. In some sense, and saying this as an aging white guy with no filter, I agree with McM in that there is something cultural in why violence in lower income black communities is higher. Note I said lower income. There's no black on black crime in Hamilton Co Indiana. Nor is it even happening in Manhatten or the Bronx. But culture isn't something that is biological. It's learned. How that culture evolved has been studied and is currently being studied.
A lot of people don't like the answers as to WHY lower income black culture can tend to violence or gangs. B/c a lot of those answers look real bad for white folks in this country over the last 200 years. Is it all white people's fault. Nope. Have measures been taken to ensure systemic racism is minimized in this country. Yep.
ARe we done yet? Based on the number you've provided, not even close. Now, assuming we ever even agree on how this culture came to be, then we have to agree on how to address it which is just a whole other can of fish.
Cannot help but believe the percentage of people at the Greenwood Mall who are armed has increased dramatically. Ditto for malls in the area and possibly elsewhere.
Whether this is good for public safety or bad is surely debatable in my opinion. Probably good in the short run. However, not so sure about the long term. Can visualize good events and bad ones.
One thing for sure, buying on line will get a boost. Sorry for those with Simon Property Group stock.
Whether this is good for public safety or bad is surely debatable in my opinion. Probably good in the short run. However, not so sure about the long term. Can visualize good events and bad ones.
One thing for sure, buying on line will get a boost. Sorry for those with Simon Property Group stock.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You’re dedicated to sticking to a failing argument. Stop that. Read about deaths to injury ratios from other
shootings involving pistols. They don’t compare to rifles.
ARs can shoot 30 rounds onto a gnats ass from 200 yards away. A psycho can shoot down a crowd of people in a matter of seconds. A pistol simply cannot. They have 33% the capacity and even less lethality at any range other than Point blank.
Your argument is “the infantry doesn’t need machine guns”. But we do. They changed the game and so do ARs. A pistol is not easier to wield - its lighter but is less accurate. Guys don’t sling their rifles and draw their pistols when they’re clearing rooms. Why do you think that is?
Sociologists would refer to groups of blacks such as those involved in gangs and violence as a sub culture.
In others words, they don't act like Blacks you find in other Black sub cultures such as Bronx, Manhattan, or Hamilton County.
I am not even having the cultural discussion, just a strictly numbers game. The rate is likely to be higher because MS has a higher percentage of the demographic that overwhelmingly contributes to that statistic while California has a less than expected ratio of that group as a percentage of their total population, particularly in comparison to that populations demographic presence in the U.S. as a whole.
The point being that pulling one statistic to buttress the argument does not fly to me. It is a combination of things and I think the legal question of guns is far down the list.
No. Government isn't like basketball coaching at all. You need to download one of these, fast, for your future reference:
Instead, it's like this, in two parts:
1. Republicans/Conservatives/Trumpists were intentionally ridiculous and stupid in accusing the current American President of being singlehandedly responsible for the increase in gasoline prices, when they knew gasoline prices are affected by worldwide demands (such as the war in Ukraine) far beyond the control of American policy.
2. Nor was the American President responsible for the decrease in U.S. gasoline prices in recent weeks, and my reference was pure sarcasm. Republicans should not have been triggered by my post. I was being blatantly sarcastic.
Republicans, come on man. When it comes to blaming Biden for gas prices, you guys act like you have no idea how gas prices are controlled by worldwide market influences. (Hardly a testimonial for putting Republicans in charge of American government.)
Blah blah blah. We wouldn't be in this situation if Trump was president.No. Government isn't like basketball coaching at all. You need to download one of these, fast, for your future reference:
Instead, it's like this, in two parts:
1. Republicans/Conservatives/Trumpists were intentionally ridiculous and stupid in accusing the current American President of being singlehandedly responsible for the increase in gasoline prices, when they knew gasoline prices are affected by worldwide demands (such as the war in Ukraine) far beyond the control of American policy.
2. Nor was the American President responsible for the decrease in U.S. gasoline prices in recent weeks, and my reference was pure sarcasm. Republicans should not have been triggered by my post. I was being blatantly sarcastic.
Republicans, come on man. When it comes to blaming Biden for gas prices, you guys act like you have no idea how gas prices are controlled by worldwide market influences. (Hardly a testimonial for putting Republicans in charge of American government.)
I’m not even sure you understand what my argument is. I’m not saying rifles aren’t easier to kill a lot of people with. I’m saying removing them won’t stop it because they aren’t the problem. The problem is much deeper than that. I think even you’d agree with that
Your position is “we should get rid of these rifles because nobody really needs them and it would PROBABLY help in lessening the body count”.
I have a real problem with that way of thinking. There are going to be mass shootings in this country no matter what we do. It’s a societal problem more than it’s a gun problem. Doing something for the sake of doing something and “hoping it helps” is not the answer. Especially considering we are talking about a fundamental American constitutional right.
As for your last paragraph, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I think the infantry doesn’t need machine guns??? The AR has been around for more than 50 years.
It's idiotic to say if shootings aren't eradicated (to ZERO) then anything that reduces them is not worthwhile.
Idiots always post the story when somebody gets stabbed, saying "hah, hah, you don't even need a gun!" Of course a room full of people doesn't get mowed down with a knife. Almost never with a "standard" handgun, shotgun, or legit hunting rifle, either. AR15s & knockoffs are the weapon of choice in such cases, over and over and over again. Is there that one-in-ten or one-in-a hundred other choice? Sure. But don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Get rid of the weapons that do the most harm. We knew hand grenades were not for citizens, so guess what... you can't legally own them. I don't understand why we can't come up with a way to put AR15s and AR15-knockoffs in the same category.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
The sample size of data is now so unfortunately large that we definitively know that ARs are much more lethal than anything out there except for perhaps buckshot at a very close range. Buckshot at a very close range is guaranteed death but those guns are low capacity and slow to fire.
Knowing that a certain type of weapon is significantly more lethal doesn’t PROBABLY mean it’s elimination would reduce its effects in mass shootings, it means it DEFINITELY would. There’s literally no denying that.
The FBI reported 455 deaths from rifles (all rifles) in 2020. There is a percentage of deaths where weapon was not specified, but your position is one more based on hysteria than reality.
I see it as a mental health issue. How many of these guys who shoot up random places just to kill people are on drugs for mental issues? Also I think we as a society should promote vigorously the nuclear family. We need to teach men and women to get married and stay married so there can be more kids who aren't growing up in broken homes.
Hand guns are the main weapon for murder. No felon should be able to legally own a weapon. Also the mentally ill should not be able to either.
Funny how so many other countries ALSO have the same mental health issues. The same drug use. The same video games. The same social media. The same peer pressure. The same movies. The same issues with nontraditional or broken families.
Why don't those countries have the mass shooting problem? What's different? HINT: a seemingly very important difference is the ease of access to so-called assault weapons in the USA.
I don't propose that everyone in that food court would be or should be armed -- I really don't want to return to the days of Dodge City, Kansas all across America. Did Ike Clanton or Doc Holliday or Wild Bill Hickok kill schoolchildren or people in church or other mass members of the public just for fun?
Republicans are stupidly missing the boat in blabbing about gun statistics that include drug dealers in dark alleys. The shootings that are changing America are not those but instead are public shootings at elementary schools, malls, parades, festivals and other public settings.
In the real world, hardly anyone thinks it is a priority to try to prevent shootings with handguns in a dark alley in drug deals gone bad. The public mass shootings have to take priority over the dark alley drug deal shootings. But, when the Republicans announce their inevitable, automatic, lockstep objections to any and all limitations on gun control to get reelected, they are just showing their absolute subordination to the gun lovers, with no concern whatsoever about the mass shootings in public places.
Why would anyone vote for a Republican under these circumstances?
There is an argument for universal health care in there. That would help address mental health and reduce abortions. As a nation, you have to put your money where your mouth is.
Because I mostly blame Democrats for the sorry state of our culture to begin with. Which is the actual issue.
In places like Uvalde, the cops were getting hand sanitizer in nut crunching time when kids were getting shot up. If people are going to have to do the cops' jobs for them, perhaps they should get their salaries and benefits as well?Lol.
But, you intentionally left out a major part of the analysis, didn't you? Your claim that the goal is to make sure " these things won't happen" is an intentional misdirection.
Many smart people believe that the number of these events would diminish (not entirely stop) if certain steps were taken. Your post ignores this.
Do you even care whether the number of these events diminishes? Doesn't sound like it.
Actually the other countries do have shootings. We aren't more violent than other nations. I believe that is not true when our press tries to paint us this way. Now in some countries they have outlawed guns completely. This is why stabbings in London are the main form of murder for instance. But they do still have shootings because criminals will find ways to get guns.
You have it close to the timeframe when things started to go to shit.Yeah, because Republicans are so moral amd respectful of the rule of law, right?
We were saddened about this story especially because we have been in that mall before. I know it shouldn't make a difference but when it is in a familiar place you feel differently. Thank goodness a good man was there to stop the shooter so more weren't killed. I also do pray for the families and friends of those who were lost.
He always has that one in his holster. It's an assemblage of his favorite talking points that is posted automatically in response to certain keywords. You know...like a bot.
There's another Republican who should also get credit for today's scorched earth strategy of both parties:
That's Newt -- win at all costs. To hell with bipartisanship. To hell with the rest of the country he knows nothing about.
Last edited:
So, how does your analysis perform when you consider the proximity of an all-red gun-loving state like, say, Indiana which makes it easy to buy tons of guns in Indiana and take them 3-4 miles (or less) across the Illinois border to shoot people in blue Illinois instead of red Indiana?
Are you blaming the blue governments in Illinois for permitting this to happen?
Why would anyone vote for a Democrat under any circumstances? Kudos for seeing how many times you could type Republican today though.
Shaquille O'Neal and Steve Alford could both shoot 3 pointers. Steve wasn't any better at it... the press just paints it that way, and claims it's "statistics" or some such liberal nonsense.
/sarcasm off
Go the that web site called Google. Search for something like mass shooting frequency, USA vs. other developed countries. Just look at images, if that helps. The graphs have been posted here over and over and over again. 100 mass shootings here for every one in (say) Japan, even WITH taking population differences into account.
THINK. You CAN do it. I BELIEVE in you.
