SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Another mass shooting, this time at a Texas outlet mall.
Shooters need to start targeting the right people: take the top 5 people at the NRA. Shoot them.
When promotions happen, take those new top 5 out.
Soon, no one would take a promotion at the NRA.
Top 5 gun promoting Governors/Senators/Republicans (don't know or care THAT much about A. political structure): take them out.
Possible other target: Top 5 people at gun manufacturing plants.
Keep doing THESE things, and support for gun control will go up, at least for shite like AR15's (or whatever). No one needs an automatic or semi-automatic for 'hunting', unless they are hunting people.
Damn: change your targets, idiots. 'Hunt' the RIGHT prey.
Legal Disclaimer: not advocating killing; just saying, if you go hunting, make sure you aim at the right target.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @02:39PM (20 children)
Your sig says to remind you if you haven't been civil. This ain't it.
I strongly oppose Runaway's posts where he wishes for everyone he disagrees with to be killed. This is on a much smaller scale, but the sentiment is similar. I'm all for holding the NRA and the Big Firearms (TM) accountable for all the evil they've caused, but it should be done with prosecution by the criminal justice system. That said, journals like these aren't helpful, and they just piss people off. Assassinations and terrorism won't solve any problems, either. I despise the NRA and Big Firearms (TM) as much as anyone, but I don't see what you're hoping to accomplish with this post.
Stay classy, Gaaark.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Sunday May 07, @02:48PM (19 children)
Trying to stay classy; just pissed.
Americans die and other Americans say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"... here in Canada, 2 people are stabbed and die. There, what, 9 now dead, 7 wounded: again and again and again and nothing is done.
Just makes you mad, and some Americans don't give a damn. But dey's got dere rights!
Sheeeit.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:18PM (15 children)
You're not making any sense anyway. Even if the shooters are sane and not mentally disturbed why should the shooters shoot YOUR targets for you? They have their own targets.
The targets you list aren't their targets. They're YOUR targets.
If all of you antigun folks want antigun legislation that badly, y'all can go get guns and prove to your targets that guns need more regulation.
If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should get a suitable rifle or two ( https://youtu.be/OWdjuOodgH4 [youtu.be] ) and practice a lot in private. Then try to shoot your targets. Even if you miss and never attack the same target twice (or not predictably) they might still get the message.
After all you are already halfway or further in justifying to yourself that other people are dying, so these people need to do some dying too.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @05:13PM (14 children)
Few are anti-gun, most a pro-regulation. Gotta love how you complain about violence then advocate more violence to convince republicans that regulation is needed. If I did not know better I would suspect you of trolling.
Advocating terrorism is bad, but gaaark's journal is much less inciteful than rightwing rhetoric and also much more insightful. When conservatives feel unsafe around guns we see LOTS of gun control paired with state sponsored violence and targeted police abuse, see Governor Reagan in California.
The oligarchs want us murdering each other, and idiots like you are their patsies promoting a culture of violence, it oozes out of your whole comment.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @05:35PM (13 children)
Shall not be infringed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @05:45PM (7 children)
Tell it to Corporal Bonespurs who wanted to take guns first and worry about due process later. You didn't vote for that guy didja?
Clearly the 2nd amendment was written in a time well before psychiatry had a better understanding of mental health.
PS: well regulated militia
PPS: if you get universal healthcare passed to support your "its a mental health problem" then we'll stop pushing so hard for better gun regulation
PPPS: we know you will not
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @05:50PM (6 children)
I did not for that guy.
The prefatory clause does not limit the right.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @09:03PM (5 children)
Yes it does, you do not get to ignore words you don't like, same as we don't get to ignore that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Supreme court ruled you can own hand guns, the guns specifically for killing humans, for self defense. As long as you are a responsible citizen owning firearms should always be a right. Some states remove felon's right to vote, and there are a lot of other rights abuses, yet for some incredibly obtuse reason Republicans are fine with infringement of those. You have better fights to pick than arguing against sane gun regulation.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @09:27PM (4 children)
We do, because we know how grammar works.
If the amendment is causing some distress, you must amend it. Or install your people on SCOTUS.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday May 08, @12:06AM (3 children)
This. Seriously, it's not law by definition, if we're not following what is written. And this isn't complicated grammar either. My take is that this is kid logic [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @03:11PM (2 children)
You are correct, only a kid would come up with that.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday May 08, @11:49PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @05:19PM
Requirement? Probably should be, force idiots to get training. The amendment specifies individual ownership, but also specifies regulation. As we are seeing today the lack of regulation turns society into a shit hole like Texas. Hell, if you're not a multi-millionaire you pay more taxes in Texas and you're much more likely to die by a bullet.
Gun regulation is a thing everywhere, you already lost that fight. So why do you bother to keep up the debate instead of focusing on regulations that would protect innocents while preserving a sane adult's right to bear arms?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @08:03PM
Shall not be unhinged.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @07:07AM
But, it was an Outlet Mall! Not infringed, but massively discounted!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 08, @08:19PM (1 child)
Well regulated militias.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @12:21PM
Prefatory clause.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @04:51PM
Think of the children.
There, from recent history that's enough reason for banning books and discriminating against guys in dresses, it'll work now. Right?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:40PM (2 children)
Mind your own shithole country, you fucking leaf.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @05:06PM
They are, same as you whining about brown folk trying to live the capitalist dream of hard work == good future. Except gaaark has more credibility having a much more violent country sharing a lot more of Canada's southern border, with southern neighbors that casually discuss glassing over the middle east with nukes or invading their northern neighbor to save them from the tyranny of *checks notes* universal healthcare??
Lol go outside, touch some grass, and try not to shoot any innocent citizens eh Paulie?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @11:19AM
All it takes is some erstwhile alleged citizen of Arkansas, even acting like he might be carrying iron, and I will shoot his fucking ass to the ground, and put in a couple extra fuck holes, for his posse. This is where we are, total gang warfare, and the Republicans are one of the gangs. And, Runaway.
Reminds me of after the LA riots, where someone say spray-painted on a wall: "LAPD Rules!" Pointing out that the police where just the best funded and most armed gang in Los Angeles. No legitimacy, no authority, kind of like the Supreme Court of late.
(Score: 2) by owl on Sunday May 07, @02:55PM (21 children)
While true, your premise above does presuppose a rational and sane individual. Arguably these mass-shooters are clearly neither rational nor sane. Most seem to be suffering from some mental health issue that makes them fall into the irrational and insane side of the spectrum.
Asking irrational and insane brains to "pick the right target" is not ever going to work, because were these brains not to be suffering from the irrational insanity they are presently suffering from they would most likely not ever commit these crimes.
And these crimes are a symptom of whatever is causing the mental health issues that lead these folks to insanity. Instead of trying to address the symptom it would be better to try to find the cause that is triggering these individuals into insanity and fixing the insanity part. That, of course, is harder to do, and does not generate click-bait headlines like focusing on the symptom does.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:03PM (3 children)
They'd shoot people who have wronged them the most. If the ones who made it easier for the shooters to get guns have not actually wronged the shooters, why the heck would the shooters shoot them?
Gaaark doesn't seem to be being that rational, sane or intelligent.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 07, @05:20PM (1 child)
Hmm... now that you mention it, that does make a lot more sense than blaming inanimate signs prohibiting guns. 🤔
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @01:27AM
or inanimate traffic signs
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @11:48PM
> A somewhat rational and sane shooter
> They'd shoot people who have wronged them the most.
The psychopath is rational and sane, they have outright contempt for humanity. Authorities are looking for a motive, I just told you what it was. The shooter's social media posts under his "psychovision" account are full of neo-nazi bile but he also posted screenshots of "milquetoast fence sitter" Tim Pool's podcast and referenced libsoftiktok (an account run by a Jewish woman). Why did he do that? Because he was a psychopath and he knew the left would dutifully attack them. Is anybody who watched Heath Ledger's Joker or any other decent attempt at portraying psychopathy confused about the games and engineered conflict?
The Mexican neo-nazi angle is a distraction, psychopaths don't consider themselves human and only ever seem to adopt political positions to justify their pathology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday May 07, @03:37PM (15 children)
Only thing is, the right, politically speaking, is the one that always makes cuts to mental health spending.
So, they say guns aren't the problem, it's mental health that is the problem, but we're not going to spend on mental health spending nor take away guns, so f*ck you.
Therefore, the only way to solve the problem is SPEND on mental health or CONTROL guns. Or change the minds of those who think guns aren't a problem... take it home to them that guns ARE the problem.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by owl on Sunday May 07, @04:27PM (14 children)
Are you so sure the second half of your sentence there is the "only" way?
Increasing mental health assistance should reduce the incidents.
But, were you to be able to magically take away all guns, why do you think that would have any impact if the mental health issues themselves are allowed to persist? I.e., why would not the insane who goes for a gun now not instead switch to a diesel-oil and fertilizer mixture instead for their rampage? Afterall, the Boston marathon bombers did not use a single gun to inflict death and injury? Removing guns would have done nothing for the Boston marathon incident. Removing guns would just mean these mentally off folks would look for another way to "go after" their perceived targets.
I.e., the old saying of: "a poor craftsman blames his tools" [thefreedictionary.com] is meaningful here. A gun is but one of many tools that can be used to attack a perceived threat, removing but one of those tools simply means the insane folks committing these crimes would switch to a different tool.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:32PM (5 children)
Because mentally ill people rarely want to put much effort into their killing. Guns are just easy. I note your absolute avoidance of universal health care, instead choosing the lame "bbbut knives n bombs!" defense. Things are so bad in the US that rightwing rhetoric falls flat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @10:37PM (4 children)
Citation needed.
There are multiple instances where the police have pointed out that the perpetrators have invested a lot of effort into the crazed killings. Crazy is in no way synonymous with lazy. Nor is it synonymous with incompetent. Or stupid. Get a grip, dude.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:15AM (3 children)
Get a grip is what was being asked of gun "enthusiasts."
The simple fact is that easy gun access with little oversight results in lots of mass murders. The UK has knife crime, that alternative which is always brought up when gun viilence is criticized, well the UK or other countries frankly do not have the same incidence of mass shootings.
Building a bomb, using a knife, or planning some other attack is much harder than pulling a trigger and the world stats make that clear. Yes some dedicated individuals could still mass murder, but why are you so determined to lower the bar? So Johnny McWifebeater can have his gun in case he needs to murder his family?
Some people should not have guns and it is tiring arguing with people who have already lost the regulation fight and are being manipulated by rightwing media to keep Us vs. Them
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:47PM (2 children)
More people die from constipation than being shot with an AR style rifle [youtube.com] which should be of concern for many here considering how full of shit they are. What we should be doing is having people adjudicated as mentally deficient and restricting their access to weapons, [sacbee.com] vehicles [msn.com] and rocks. [nytimes.com]
Homicide rates are inversely correlated with institutionalization [ssrn.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Monday May 08, @08:32PM (1 child)
A person who dies of a medical condition did not have that death inflicted upon them by some random nutjob with an easy to access gun.
What is so unreasonable about making sure that:
Why is that infringement?
If you are a law abiding responsible adult, I don't want to take your gun. Is that the problem you have with this? Law abiding? Or Responsible?
To drive a car, you have to be law abiding, at least to some minor degree, not being suspended or revoked. Driving privileges come with some minimal safety instruction or testing. And it comes with some responsibility. Eg, that "responsible" adult part. You are responsible for what you do behind the wheel. There is a legitimate public safety concern.
Please do not use firearms while drinking. Be sure the last drink has been fully consumed before picking up any firearms, even if only to look down the barrel to see if it is loaded.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:27PM
> only law abiding responsible adults can obtain guns
This requires we enforce laws instead of downgrading felonies to misdemeanors. [politifact.com]
It also would not have stopped the psychopath in Texas, his expulsion from the military on mental health grounds was the only warning we know of. Ultimately it took a good guy with a gun (a cop) to ventilate the losers dome and put a stop to the murder spree. A psychopath like that would use a vehicle or explosives if the firearms were not available.
I'm also not convinced on the marksmanship requirement. Most responsible gun owners train regularly because these are perishable skills. We don't want criminals being competent marksmen do we?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday May 07, @05:33PM (6 children)
I don't know his personal views on how far to take gun control, but I can tell you that taking all the guns away is not what the left is after, generally speaking. That's what right-wing outlets project to stall the debate. I'm sorry for picking on you specifically about it, I've just seen it one too many times today and we really need to unify to get the death to stop.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by owl on Sunday May 07, @06:48PM (5 children)
Also not the point I was making. The premise to which I was replying was that the only fix was mental health help or control guns.
I was suggesting a thought experiment: "imagine you could take away all the guns" -- (i.e., the "magical" part) -- if you could do so, would that actually "control anything"?
Under that premise my point was then that these mentally ill folks would simply switch to another method of killing their perceived targets, possibly homemade bombs. And I cited a recent example of a mentally ill individual that did jut that, even with guns being available (Boston Marathon bomber).
I.e., the point ended up at: if the mental illness issues are not fixed, all that likely changes is a word or two in the click-bait headlines. They go from "Shooter rampage kills seven, injures twelve" to "Bomber kills seven, injures twelve". But the problem of nutjobs killing people continues to persist.
Therefore, "controlling the guns" is not actually a solution, it just changes the tool used by the mentally ill individuals who go on these self imposed rampages.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday May 07, @08:11PM
Im just going to be up front and say I reacted before thinking. This is an emotional topic for me. :/ I am sorry for misinterpreting your point.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @09:59PM (3 children)
If there really were 1:1 replacement of guns for other means, why isn't their a rampage of assailants using said other means or racking up similar body counts in places with gun control?
(Score: 2) by owl on Sunday May 07, @10:35PM
The mentally ill likely take the path of least resistance to attacking their perceived enemy. Using a gun is easier than whipping up a bomb. So most likely choose a gun.
Were guns to magically (see earlier comment re. 'magically') disappear overnight, all that would change is that maybe some of the mentally ill delay their attacks because they see whipping up a bomb as too hard at the time. But let them remain ill long enough and the illness will likely overcome the friction from "bomb-making" vs "gun" and they would just go and attack with a tool other than a gun (a bomb, or poison gas [both bleach and ammonia are readily available at any grocery store], or some other tool of destruction).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:04PM
Because we have health care and we look after the disabled, mental or physical.
We still get incidents, but they are rare instead of daily.
I don't think you are going to easily ban guns due to the difficulty of amending your constitution, so you should fight for universal health care. At least that's a positive fight for something decent instead of a futile attempt to ban something.
(Score: 2) by nostyle on Monday May 08, @04:31PM
Seek and ye shall find [bbc.com].
--
"We’re the men who died for freedom - Across the Rio Grande", -The Chieftains, March To Battle
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Monday May 08, @05:20PM
Meanwhile Russia's about to lose Wagner SiMpLY because they don't have ammo. Putin can't get them back by sending them a crate of silverware and fertilizer.
This rationale doesn't even work in a video game setting like GTA. Anybody who has tried the "get fifty kills in 60 seconds" bonus round can attest to that. This might be hard for some to believe but in most cases a machine designed specifically to kill is going to be preferred over an improvised device that could easily kill you during its construction.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 09, @02:07PM
If we fix the mental health issue, it will become difficult to elect Republicans. Marjorie Taylor Green would strongly object to fixing the mental health issue.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:33PM (1 child)
Opinions of autisms like Gaaaaaaaark should be discarded. There is absolutely no need to investigate him over his stupid opinion, because he doesn't have agency. He literally couldn't stop himself from regurgitating propaganda in a threatening manner.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:34PM
Incel alert! Can the owner of a blue cotton cum please sock clean up their diarrhea?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:29PM (1 child)
But at least you get to see the real faces of the rightwing dirt bags that hang around here, and here they whine about others being uncivil. God damn republicans are shite people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:37PM
Uh oh, the snowflakes mod "gaark is autistic" as insightful and a condemnation of violence AND rightwimg assholes as flamebait? You fuckers are what ruined SN with your sensitive feefees that let you be assholes while everyone else must tiptoe around your white privilege.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 07, @06:24PM (23 children)
Even when deaths are unacceptably frequent, and preventable, it's still somewhat low odds that it will hit any one individual, so those "rugged individuals" convince themselves that it won't hit them, they are somehow "better" than the victims, stronger, smarter, immune, quicker draw, cooler in a firefight, whatever.
Then when it hits one of their friends or family, it's a damn shame, but they are still standing, so...
I lost the link but there was a great comedy/tragedy skit about Stand Your Ground laws and how some woman in the NRA got the first one passed in Florida on a hypothetical story... If there were an alternate universe I could move to without such politically successful NRA lobbyists, I would.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @08:27PM
Texas is an Abbottoir.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @11:16PM (21 children)
Or have a firearm in the first place. Learn some risk management. Let's start with the "unacceptably frequent" canard. 184 mass shootings as of May 1, 2023 for the year:
So roughly 1000 deaths or injuries for a third of a year from mass shootings which gives roughly 3000 per year rate. Let's say the NRA tough guys have 100 family and friends in their circle. So if these injuries and deaths were uniformly distributed, which they aren't, then the average tough guy would expect his family/friends to be hurt or killed in a mass shooting roughly once every thousand years. 1000*100*3000=300 million. So why again should we expect the tough guys to be so concerned about a risk that hits once a millennia for them?
Let's move on to the next. "Preventable". There are multiple ideas of how to prevent mass shootings. Some people think having a lot of armed people in society is a means while others think that passing prohibitions on hundreds of millions of law abiding people is a means. Guess which one of those I favor? I'll just note that all of these mass shootings have happened in today's regulated environment, while the majority of mass shootings stop when someone starts returning fire.
Is there something wrong with Florida's Stand Your Ground laws? Last I heard, the hubbub died down after the George Zimmerman trial [wikipedia.org] resolved. Here, Zimmerman who was carrying a firearm allegedly confronted Trayvon Martin after dark in Zimmerman's neighborhood (Zimmerman was on the the neighborhood watch), and then shot and killed Martin in self-defense after Martin started pounding the back of Zimmerman's head into a concrete sidewalk. There, the alleged controversy was that Martin was in fear of his life after being confronted by someone with a firearm, and that Stand Your Ground law emboldened Zimmerman to act recklessly or worse with intent to kill by allowing him to pursue a threatening situation. All I can say is that it looked like a clear case of legal self-defense to me and the jury in the trial agreed.
But perhaps an actual problem has surfaced since?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @11:16PM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday May 07, @11:51PM (19 children)
>an actual problem
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html [rand.org]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @12:10AM (18 children)
Seriously that's your actual problem?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 08, @12:51AM (17 children)
Yes, that and asshats shooting people in the back because they "were afraid" and then failures to prosecute said asshats due to possible SYG defense.
Then there is utter bullshit such as this:
"The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."
'I'm Gonna Shoot!'Horn called 911 in November to report a burglary in broad daylight at the house next door.
"I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?" Horn asked the dispatcher.
"Nope. Don't do that," the dispatcher replied. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
Horn was clearly upset by the dispatcher's response.
"I'm not gonna let them get away with it," he said. "I can't take a chance getting killed over this, OK."
Despite the dispatcher's protects, Horn said, "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!"
The 911 dispatcher warned Horn to stay inside at least a dozen separate times, telling him, "An officer is coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."
Then Horn sounding angrier by the moment cited the new Texas law.
"OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir," he said. "And you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it."
Moments later, Horn saw two burglars leave his neighbor's house, one of them carrying a bag filled with cash and jewelry.
"I'm gonna kill him," Horn said."Stay in the house," the dispatcher said."They're getting away," Horn replied."That's all right," the dispatcher said. "Property's not worth killing someone over. OK?""---damn it," said Horn, who then defied the dispatcher.
"Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going," he said.
"Don't go outside," the dispatcher warned.
Self-Defense?Horn says he came out his front door, down his porch and confronted the two burglars. The next sounds heard on the 911 tape are Horn ordering the two men to stop & and then shooting them both.
"Move you're dead," he said, and fired his shotgun three times.
"Both suspects were shot in the back," Pasadena Police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett said. "Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back."
Horn fatally shot the burglars.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:43AM
Murdering people doing things they don't like, such as theft or trying to work in their country (immigrants) is the wet dream of USA conservatives. Just beyond immoral and un-Christian, and no way to build a country. Rightwing hatred needs to chill the fuck out, but saying that causes rage and you might get shot in the back.
Murder is worse than burglary. By so much worse. Even tEh ViOlEnT MuSLiMs just cut off a hand lololol but sadly this shit is real for the dozens of recent totally innocent victims of Republican gun violence.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @03:01AM (1 child)
How about you link to these asshat cases so we can evaluate whether they really are as you claim? I won't assume as you do that being shot in the back means that there wasn't a legitimate claim to self-defense. SYG isn't a magic defense. What may have happened is that a politically oriented prosecutor decided to take the knee rather than risks something unpopular. Blaming it on SYG probably is just a convenient excuse.
As to the Horn case, it does sound like a partially valid Stand Your Ground issue. He didn't have a legal obligation to follow the directions of the 911 operator nor to avoid confronting the burglars. The only real question then is whether he intended to give them a chance to surrender peacefully or not. Wouldn't sound like that to me, based on what you've mentioned, but that didn't pass a grand jury, which is normally a pretty low threshold.
Going back to the original RAND study, my bet is that the alleged correlation is due to increased crime - spurring both the increased crime and violence statistics as well as reactionary stand your ground laws.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 08, @08:11AM
>my bet is that the alleged correlation is due to increased crime
My bet is that crime has been on a general decrease during the period, except for gun violence in Stand Your Ground states. In your own troll terms: put up the source or STFU about crime increases.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday May 08, @01:58PM (13 children)
Texas penal code section 9.42 [soylentnews.org]
Use of lethal force is justified in Texas when used to prevent the commission of a crime against oneself or others. This isn't a "stand-your-ground" issue, per se. The reported incident is clearly justified within the text of Texas law, despite the protests of the 911 operator.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 08, @02:32PM (12 children)
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land ... when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: to prevent the other’s imminent commission of ... criminal mischief during the nighttime ... and he reasonably believes that ... the use of force other than deadly force to protect ... the land ... would expose the actor ... to a substantial risk of ... serious bodily injury.
Drunk guy is about to piss on the neighbors' petunias, he's unzipped and everything, he's pretty big, and drunk, I'm afraid he might rough me up if I just go ask him to zip up and leave, I yelled at (his deaf self) from the porch but he's starting to pull it out, better pop his melon with my 30-6 before he spoils the pH of the soil, Margaret worked so hard getting petunias to grow there you know.
Yay Texas.
What does it tell you when a lobbyist group actively suppresses research into the effects of the laws they lobby for? https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research [npr.org]
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday May 08, @04:56PM (11 children)
FTFY.
So, yes, in Texas law, "they were getting away with stuff they stole from my neighbor, and I didn't think I could tackle and subdue both of them" is 100% an affirmative defense against a homicide charge in this case. Deadly force is justified for this, at least in the state of Texas. If you think it shouldn't be, then say so instead of changing the topic.
If you want to strawman this, then at least reference the actual Texas stature on criminal mischief [public.law] and note that spray-painting graffiti counts. "It was dark, and it looked like he was carrying a can of spray paint!" is a much better reductio ad absurdum than peeing on the petunias.
Did you honestly think that's what the lay meant by "protecting land", or are you just taking the piss? (I shouldn't have to ask, it's the second, isn't it?)
Also, by writing 30-6 instead of 30-06 either your ignorance or your bad typing is showing. Neither is a good look.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday May 08, @05:02PM (1 child)
LOL @ myself: it was inevitable.
Emphasis added. What's the name of the internet law again where as soon as you accuse someone of something you do the same thing, usually in the same post? *sigh*
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 08, @06:35PM
I can't say whether I mis-typed the aught-6 as a Freudian channeling of a dumb hick whose pappy always referred to it that way so so does he - after all it's his gun, or it was just a slip. Either way, perfection is not the way to win friends on a grand jury, and that's where I'm taking the piss (literally) and simultaneously looking for the boundary of the law... if the grand jury finds that the -6 shooter was reasonable in his actions. Leaving out the "color" of whether the drunk petunia pisser was a brown skinned illegal alien or not, though you know that has a huge bearing on most Texan grand jury decisions.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 08, @06:44PM (8 children)
I agree, the Horn case is pretty cut and dried in Texas law, along the lines you highlighted.
What I was pointing out is that the law goes even further and makes deadly force legal for a very broad set of behaviors and interpretations, essentially making anyone with a gun a legal executioner should they witness "criminal mischief at night," and similar things that Jesus would cry for Christians getting killed over.
It's worth noting that the original Stand Your Ground legislation (in Florida, of course) was proposed by the NRA (of course) based entirely on a hypothetical presented by an NRA lobbyist that she might have been arrested (she wasn't) if she had shot some hoodlums (she didn't) in self defense when they attacked her (they didn't).
In the extreme reductionist view: guns are for frightened people. Pro-gun lobbyists are fear mongers peddling hypotheticals to get "protections" for gun users which are, in fact, actually making their lives more dangerous. That's what the RAND report shows: Stand Your Ground and other pro-gun legislation correlates with increases in gun violence, injuries and deaths.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday May 08, @10:27PM (7 children)
And I agree, that I would feel uneasy exercising my legal right to use lethal force against a 12-year-old with a can of spray paint.
You did, on the other hand, call the Horn case, "utter bullshit". [soylentnews.org] Please elaborate? Is it that you disapprove of citizens responding to crime with lethal force in general, or in only some cases? And if it's justified to shoot burglars fleeing with stolen goods to prevent their escape, how would the shots land in a place other than their backs?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here; are you arguing that she didn't have standing to discuss gun policy because she had never been prosecuted for shooting her assailants? Or are you arguing that it is entirely hypothetical that a Florida woman would need to defend herself against hoodlums, [duckduckgo.com] and the law was therefore unnnecessary? Or that she would not be arrested [lawyers.com] for doing the same, again making the law unnecessary?
I don't know the history of Florida law and whether it was a castle doctrine state or a duty-to-retreat state prior to the SYG law passing. I do, however, recognize that a continuum exists across the States regarding what legal options someone has when a crime is committed and a citizen has lethal force available as a response. It appears to range from "run away if possible" to "stop the crime from occurring if you can do so without endangering bystanders". I don't know of a state where you are forced to leave your home if attacked, not even New York. [13wham.com]
I'm going to disagree. Guns are for people who choose not to be victims. It's not the Police's job to protect you, individually. [duckduckgo.com] My natural rights to life, liberty, and property are meaningless if I cannot defend them.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday May 08, @11:32PM (6 children)
>Is it that you disapprove of citizens responding to crime with lethal force in general, or in only some cases?
Yes, lethal force should be the option of last resort. I believe "duty to retreat" applies to citizens and officers of the law when alone (without a second officer present.). Castle doctrine is also sensible, if you are already in your home, retreat outside only puts you in more uncertainty/danger.
How is it that we spend so much effort on arrest, detention and trial by a jury of your peers if the more efficient legal answer is for ordinary citizens to take all those things into their own hands and enact a summary execution for possession of paint with intent to spray? It feels very much to me like those executions violate the rights of the executed as intended and written by our founding fathers much more deeply than a ban on assault rifles ever could.
>are you arguing
I'm saying that the laws we have been getting recently are argued for and enacted based on hypothetical arguments of things that have not even transpired, the lobbyists are just "afraid they might."
>Guns are for people who choose not to be victims
I have lived 55 years, 20 in rather "high crime" neighborhoods of Miami, and I believe that my odds of being a victim of crime would have been higher if I had owned, regularly trained with, and carried guns. My stepfather concealed carried from 1980 through 2015 (age 73) when he finally decided that the gun was too heavy so started carrying a knife instead. He never had use for his sidearm, none of his half-dozen friends who carried ever did either, but when thieves brought into my grandparents' home while they were away they did get his gun collection. So, on the whole, about 200 man-years of avid gun ownership by good people resulted in, net, no crimes averted but a half dozen guns being put in the hands of burglars...
If you live for decades preparing, at great expense of time and money, for a personal victimization that's unlikely to ever happen, what do you call that other than living in fear?
Further, when all your preparation actually leads to an increased chance of you becoming a victim, is that a rational choice or an emotional one?
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Tuesday May 09, @04:13AM (5 children)
I call it preparation. I call it self-reliance. I call it responsibility. If someone comes seeking to deprive me of life, liberty, or property then I intend to stop them. I won't stand by, passively take the "L", and hope that the Police can restore what I've lost after they eventually arrive. And if I'm prepared, I don't have to be afraid.
It is proper for the Government to be very careful about wielding the power to deprive its citizens of their life/liberty/property. And I'm not saying that individuals should become vigilantes and start patrolling their neighborhoods looking for trouble. But if trouble comes looking for that individual, I believe that individual has a natural right, a human right to end that threat decisively if needed. The constitution as written was intended to enshrine - not grant - those rights we the People already possessed.
I've already said I agree if we're talking about vandalism. I wholeheartedly disagree if we're discussing murder/kidnapping/theft. I have no respect for the right to life of home invaders: they have, by their actions, shown that they have no respect for the fundamental rights of their victims. Again, I'm not advocating chasing someone down who is running away empty-handed. On the other hand, in the moments after they break in my front door the most mercy they'll get from me is a clean center-of-mass shot, because intentionally shooting to injure or maim is no better than torture and I don't support it in the slightest. I don't claim to have clairvoyance enough to say with certainty that the Founders would agree with everything I just said, but I'd be surprised if they would agree with elevating the right of criminals over those of their victims during the commission of a crime.
If you think those scenarios are hypothetical/have not transpired, then you aren't paying attention and didn't read the link in my previous comment about defending against hoodlums. If you're lived 20 years in "high-crime" neighborhoods then you know exactly how often it happens, too. Congratulations on it not happening to you. Feel free to live however you believe is best.
To quote Cpt. Jack Sparrow, "it's about what a man can do, and what a man can't do." I can't stop someone from depriving me of my property if they're larger/a better trained fighter than me. If I'm armed, then I can.
I can also use my arms with a clear conscience if I do so judiciously, prudently, only when necessary, and within my community's rules of engagement as defined by local law. Finally, on the topic of last resorts:
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 09, @11:01AM (3 children)
>I call it preparation. I call it self-reliance. I call it responsibility.
Odds of someone actively plotting to deprive you of life are vanishingly small if you live mostly within the bounds of our more commonly enforced laws.
Liberty? I assume you mean foreign invasion? Unless you intend to enlist in the armed (with real modern weapons) services, the next best place to defend liberty is at the ballot box. Fending off foreign threats to US national sovereignty with sidearms has been the stuff of fantasy for 100+ years.
Property? That could happen, but the insurance you likely already carry is far more effective, efficient, and probably drives law enforcement in areas of need as well.
>prepared, I don't have to be afraid
I'll agree the psychology works, the actual outcome is something else.
>trouble comes looking for that individual, I believe that individual has a natural right, a human right to end that threat decisively if needed.
I disagree that alleged petunia pissers and paint sprayers should be legally subject to summary execution by individuals, period. That really extends to all property crimes, see above about insurance and letting their losses drive police funding. Witnessing an apparent burglary of a neighbor's property is not adequate justification for murder.
>wholeheartedly disagree if we're discussing murder/kidnapping/theft.
I draw the line before theft. It is far too easy to frame a corpse as an apparent thief.
>Congratulations on it not happening to you
We had a car stolen from the front yard. No amount of personal weaponry preparation would have changed that outcome. Separately, a petty thief (crackhead) who had been away from the neighborhood for some years moved back in and started stealing petty things from cars parked outside, I lost a cassette tape collection. Some nights later, he broke into a cop's personal car at 3am, cop heard him, pursued him into the street and unloaded a revolver into his back. Story goes the petty thief threw a brick through the window of the house, thus threatening the safety of the cop and justifying the deadly force response under the laws of the day. Convenient that bricks don't hold fingerprints, isn't it? I don't miss the thief, but I don't believe execution in the street was appropriate for him or any person like him. Even though he was clearly difficult, if not impossible, to rehabilitate from his thieving ways, we owe it to ourselves not to execute people for petty crime, lest we ourselves end up executed by someone who claims we were perpetrating a petty crime against them or their neighbors or random people they don't even know.
It's not just the big city where shit happens. Out in semi rural suburbia (conservative gun toters' paradise) a random transient broke in an old couple's house (through the open garage door) tied them up, seriously injuring them in the process, and cleaned out their house while they watched, at 2pm on a Tuesday. Old man's guns didn't help them, neighbors' guns didn't either, assailant's gun didn't need to be fired but did pistol whip the old man, breaking his jaw.
>within my community's rules of engagement as defined by local law.
Those laws have gone too far in many places recently, and ironically SYG isn't a practical defense for the vast majority of cases that might use it, due largely to the byzantine nature of our justice system. At least in Florida, 90% of SYG hearings do not result in dismissal of the case, those that do still take years to process. Using SYG requires the defendant to take the stand which dramatically negatively impacts most outcomes at trial. It has been said that use of a SYG defense, in Florida at least, should be regarded as malpractice at this point given the case history. What SYG does do is give a lot of gun advocates more to talk about (I consider talkative gun advocates both worse, and more numerous than vegetarians in that respect, at least vegetarians have some reason to bring up the topic). All those gun nuts talking about SYG does have real world impact according to the studies cited in the RAND report: more people end up shot. Violent crime increases, not decreases.
Sufficient violence will end a single situation, but it serves to create more violent situations in the future. Jesus had something to say about that.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday May 10, @03:58PM (2 children)
Sorry to keep you waiting, I thought I'd posted this last night but the S/N servers disagree with me... See below for what I intended to write.
I'm struggling to find some common ground with you here, and I hope that I've found it.
>>wholeheartedly disagree if we're discussing murder/kidnapping/theft.
>I draw the line before theft. It is far too easy to frame a corpse as an apparent thief.
Do you agree, then, that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family - with lethal force - from imminent threats of murder or kidnapping?
I'll wait to reply to the rest of your points until I get your reply on this.
Oh, except for this bit, which I found precious:
>Liberty? I assume you mean foreign invasion? Unless you intend to enlist in the armed (with real modern weapons) services
Been there, doing that.
>Fending off foreign threats to US national sovereignty with sidearms has been the stuff of fantasy for 100+ years.
You're welcome.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 10, @07:57PM
>Do you agree, then, that I have a natural right to defend myself and my family - with lethal force - from imminent threats of murder or kidnapping?
Absolutely, but again there's that grey area: can you really prove there was an imminent threat? The corpse certainly can't testify on its own behalf (beyond the classic: shot in the back.)
>You're welcome.
Thank you for your service, no sarcasm, but again: what good were personal weapons for defending Pearl Harbor? When have we had sovereign soil threatened by an adversary that would be deterred by a .38 special? Not even the recent balloons were in range of a 30-06.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday May 11, @03:14PM
Just to expand a bit on the concept of corpse testimony:
If Star Trek vaporizing phasers were a real thing, I think that's a technology that should absolutely be kept off the streets (citizens and police) because: it makes murder too clean and hard to prosecute. Sure, they _could_ be used in self-defense, but they're not much, if any, more effective than a Glock 19 - and the relatively quiet and clean aspects of their operation mean that people who don't deserve to be killed are more likely be murdered by people who think they're likely to get away with it. Like existing silencer bans.
This goes along similar lines to deadly force as a self-defense against kidnapping. Like the vaporizing phaser, if you can kidnap a person, then you can take them somewhere relatively easy to "disappear" the corpse. It's not the kidnapping itself that rises to the level of a deadly force self-defense justification, the essential injury of kidnapping is only a little more inconvenient than being cornered in a boring conversation at cocktail party, it's what the kidnapper is then capable of once you have been kidnapped that justifies deadly force as a self-defense.
I took a trip to Mexico in 1985, our taxi driver told us: If there's an accident on the road and one driver dies, for a small consideration to the police the accident can always be the fault of the dead driver. He _may_ have been joking about the situation in the Yucatan at the time, but certainly there are places and times when such things are true.
If you are killed, and didn't deserve to be, that's the ultimate violation of your rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The more situations that exist in which deadly force is a legally justified action, the more such ultimate violations will go unpunished, and more importantly happen in the first place.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 10, @03:19PM
>To quote Cpt. Jack Sparrow, "it's about what a man can do, and what a man can't do." I can't stop someone from depriving me of my property if they're larger/a better trained fighter than me. If I'm armed, then I can.
In a practical sense, I do not guard my property "dragon style" brooding 24-7 on a pile of wealth. Those times I am away from the property I value, ownership of guns would appear to be a net-neutral for burglars - on the one hand they may deter on the thought: "the owner might be armed." On the other hand, they're a valuable and fungible thing to steal...
Four major home burglaries have happened to neighbors and family members in my life - like: house cleaned out of basically all valuable contents, and some comically cheap stuff too. Three happened when the residents were all out at work, the fourth when they were away on vacation for a few days. Two had "24 hour live monitoring" alarm systems, which worked, but Police response time was 20-30 minutes and the burglars cleared out of those houses in 10-15 minutes. The other two took their time, thoroughly cleaning out the house - not just the fast big-ticket items.
All four of those homes have also been devastated by hurricanes, suffering not only loss of most contents but structural damage far more expensive to recover from. Guns don't stop storms, but insurance covered both cases.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 07, @10:43PM (19 children)
Repeal all gun control laws, and encourage citizens to carry their own guns. Take down all those "gun free zone" signs, and allow honest, law abiding citizens to provide for their own security. If/when a crazy starts shooting, he goes down hard after the second or third shot. He gets no body count that makes him "famous", and he's considered a failure among the crazies who want to emulate the more famous crazies.
Just tear down all the stupid shit that prevents law abiding citizens from defending themselves. The problem will self correct in just a few short eyars.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @07:14AM (2 children)
I have renewed the Red Flag tag on Runaway at his local sheriff's office. I have a feeling the sorry sad sack is about to pop.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @02:18PM (1 child)
You seem to have missed the fact that the first red flag laws are being struck down as unconstitutional.
https://13wham.com/news/local/state-supreme-court-judge-in-rochester-rules-nys-red-flag-law-unconstitutional-thomas-moran-dan-strollo-erpo-payton-gendron-buffalo-tops-shooting [13wham.com]
One or more cases will be going to the US Supreme Court, soon enough.
I could write you a red flag law that would pass constitutional muster. I wouldn't like it, nor would you like it, but a compromise could be reached that didn't violate the constitution. No Democrat is the least bit interested in such a compromise. They insist that someone/anyone should be able to point a finger, do some shrill screeching, and have weapons confiscated. I am not entirely averse to having weapons confiscated from stupid or crazy SOBs. But, due process. It takes a court hearing to deprive anyone of their human rights, not just a frenzied half hour at a typewriter, typing up accusations, then getting a warrant.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @08:59PM
Sheriff Bobby said they are keeping an eye on the Soylentil known as Runaway1956. Constitution's got nothing to do with it. You are a dangerous unhinged right-wing nutjob.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Monday May 08, @03:05PM
Why did an NRA meeting and a Trump Rally not allow guns?
Shouldn't they be encouraging their attendees to be exercising their 2nd amendment rats with wild abandon? And please, if you're going to attend, at least have the decency to bring a fully automatic weapon, okay?
It will be grate! People can compare the size of their, uh, guns. No harm done. Everyone goes home happy.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 08, @04:34PM (6 children)
Then it would have happened by now. What you are proposing is only a stalling tactic.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @06:08PM (5 children)
Utter nonsense. The highest homicide rates in this nation, are in blue cities with strict gun control laws. What that means is, law abiding citizens are deprived of the means to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the criminals who have no regard for the law, carry at will.
Those criminals need to meet armed citizens who are willing and able to put them in the ground.
There are no recidivism rates available for the residents of cemeteries.
Arm the honest, and stop playing stupid games in the blue cities.
And, let us not forget that your blue cities export blue minded people all over the country, including your criminals. You place a burden on red states and red cities.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Monday May 08, @06:26PM (4 children)
Nope. [politico.com] Actually the heat-map gets hotter as you drift south and east.
Red cities aren't even close to having this problem solved. That's why they babble about Chicago and NYC, so you'll look the other way.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @08:29PM (3 children)
Your heat map doesn't identify red and blue cities, now does it? https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/11/04/democrat-run-cities-counties-have-a-murder-problem-report-shows/ [dailysignal.com]
I stand by my earlier statement. Further, Democrat policies lead to crime, violence, and poverty.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 08, @08:53PM (1 child)
You fools are arming the people you want to shoot at.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:41PM
It's a fine example of how you can use statistics to lie.
If he wanted to accurately quantify how dangerous cities are, he would report the murder rate per 100,000 residents or something similar. When you take that into account, Chicago is nowhere near the top of the list. Here's a source: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/ [cbsnews.com]. The statistics are skewed to claim that the largest US cities are inherently the most dangerous. That's not accurate at all.
It also neglects to address that the significant majority of the largest cities have Democratic mayors. Here's a list of the top 50 cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]. Of course a large majority of the cities with the highest murder rates are going to have Democratic mayors. It's because most of the largest cities in the country have Democratic mayors.
It also doesn't demonstrate causation. If there is a link between violent crime and city government, it is entirely possible that people vote for Democrats because they trust Democrats more than Republicans to solve the issue of violent crime.
The policies Runaway is supporting are to imprison more people and for longer periods of time. However, incarcerating criminals often makes them more likely to commit crimes again. Short of never releasing anyone from prison, the policies he supports fail to address the problem of recidivism and actually make it worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:52PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @06:04PM (7 children)
This presumes that the motivation of every mass shooter is to get attention and fame. At best, that's a completely unsupported statement that you're expecting everyone to just accept as fact. At worst, it's absolutely false.
This also presumes that mass shooters are inherently acting rationally, where they will decide against mowing down people with bullets because they won't get attention from doing so, and will be viewed as a failure. This is absurd, because a person who wants to carry out a mass shooting is most certainly behaving in an irrational manner. Otherwise, they wouldn't want to attempt a mass shooting.
In fact, mass shooters have a variety of motivations, whether it's political terrorism, rage against their classmates, or even no clear motive at all. To this day, no clear motivation has been found for the mass shooting in Las Vegas a few years ago. This invalidates your argument that mass shooters will be discouraged because they know they will be viewed as failures.
Your comment about eliminating gun free zones shows your true motivations. You insist that this is about freedom, but this shows otherwise. A lot of gun free zones are on private property, where the owner has decided that guns are not welcome. Whether it's a business or a place of residence, the owner has the right to decide that guns are not permitted on private property. Your position, therefore, is that you should get to dictate to property owners that they must allow people to carry guns on their property. You are showing that this is not about your freedom. It's about you imposing your will on others and forcing them to let you bring guns onto their property against their will.
You are also arguing that people should be expected to carry guns to defend themselves. Once again, you are trying to dictate to other people what they have to do, whether they want to or not. Once again, you are attempting to impose your will on other people, to control them, and infringe upon their freedom.
Whether the issue is culture wars, guns, or many other issues, there's a common theme underlying the right's positions on these issues. The right is authoritarian, seeking to impose their will on others instead of respecting the freedom of others. In this instance, you want to force other people to let you carry guns on their property, and you want to force other people to arm themselves. You are an authoritarian.
Take your authoritarian behavior and shove it up your ass. We don't need right wing tyrants trying to force everyone else to do as they say. Fuck off.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @06:12PM (6 children)
You seem to have jumped to a whole bunch of unwarranted conclusions about what I think, and the reasons why gun control laws only make crime worse, along with the motivations for mass shooters.
I will state that a lot of mass shooters are in it for the notoriety. Remember the Buffalo shooter? He left his homework behind, showing why he picked the target he picked, and was willing to drive extra miles out of his way to hit that target. He was looking for a high body count, and no armed resistance.
Many of the crazies have common motivations. Not all. Not even most. But many certainly do. And, the media cooperates with them, by giving every mass shooter days and weeks of free publicity.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @06:44PM (2 children)
One common motivation is hatred for specific groups of people. The Dallas mass shooter has been linked to white supremacy. The 2018 mass shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh was motivated by antisemitism. The Sutherland Springs mass shooting in 2017 was motivated by a hatred for Christianity. The 2015 Charleston shooting at a Methodist Episcopal church was motivated by a hatred for Black people, and inspired the Sutherland Springs shooter. The mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin was motivated by white supremacy. Those are five examples of mass shootings motivated by hate for specific groups of people, and there are many other examples.
These mass shootings draw attention to the hateful ideologies of the shooters. If you want to take away the incentives for mass shooters, then that means limiting the spread of their hateful messages.
Shall we regulate and ban hate speech to avoid giving notoriety to future mass shooters who are motivated by hate and bigotry? Your logic supports greater regulation of hate speech.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @08:19PM (1 child)
My logic dictates that the media exercise some restraint in covering the whackos. Instead of weeks of coverage, the shooter's names and details, their ideology should get a passing mention, and then dropped. After the first 24 hours, refer to the shooter as "The crazy bastard who shot up _______, _______. You will note, I'm not calling for government to censor the media, I'm calling on the media to report the news more responsibly.
But, yeah, we see how self regulation works in all the other industries.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:06PM
Has already been happening for years, perhaps just not on your news channel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:03PM
I don't think that anyone here thinks you are thinking, Runaway. More like that you are spasmodically repeating talking points from your exposure to right-wing hate groups, who are very afraid of America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @10:05PM (1 child)
The motivations are obvious:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-know-the-motive-behind-every-mass-shooting [mcsweeneys.net]
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @11:28PM
Ms Harrington is pretty smart. Not only does she cut to the core of the problem, but she also identifies the weapons used, repeatedly. I stopped reading after awhile, but I didn't see "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" or the myriad other meaningless terms tossed about by the left. Pistols are the first weapon of choice among shooters, always have been, always will be. It's a helluva lot easier to conceal a pistol, than a rifle or shotgun.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday May 07, @11:43PM
Depending on if a certain demographic [youtu.be] is doing the shooting.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 08, @01:17AM (39 children)
Can anyone explain why fully and semi automatic weapons need to be owned by the average person? Having to stop and load a gun after every shot: wouldn't that be an acceptable option? If not, why not. You'd still bear an arm, you'd still be able to take down an active shooter if he, after every shot, had to stop and reload.
Or is your manhood in trouble with that idea?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:34AM
Cause the US civil war left a bunch of angry racists who think they'll be freedom fighting guerilla warriors needing to overthrow the government with high powered toys. It was how the country was founded, fighting the oppressor and all that. You are correct, less rapidly lethal fire arms are enough. If things truly got bad enough to wage civil war then you are in army territory dot dot dot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday May 08, @02:43AM (1 child)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:47AM
See: Rambo
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @03:12AM (17 children)
If you can explain what "need" means and why it is relevant to this thread, then I can explain why they need them.
Unless, of course, he failed to bring a single shot firearm along and instead brought a semi-automatic with a lot of ammunition clips. Given how easy it is to smuggle such into Canada, I'm not seeing what would be the point of the prohibition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @07:21AM
Oh oh, you "triggered" khallow! (See what I did there? Anyway,) Khallow is advocating international crimes of weapons trafficking across national boundaries. I think he really needs to think about what criticizing people's use of the term "need" means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @05:38PM (9 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @11:48PM (8 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @12:31AM (7 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @03:04AM (6 children)
It's not my clarity that's relevant here, but Gaaark's. And Gaaark is quite clear about proposing a prohibition not merely a regulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @03:49AM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @04:25AM (4 children)
So if I ban your speech, but not all speech, I'm merely regulating not prohibiting? Do you get the problem yet with your deceptive use of language?
Nonsense. Gaaark proposed we prohibit firearms that shoot more than once at a time. It's not muddy in the least.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @04:33AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:30AM (2 children)
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @05:57AM (1 child)
Oh quit insurrecting, you're prohibitioning your own credibility. That cannot possibly be cromulent for your embiggened ego. I don't care if you eat boogers while deciphering my point because you self-ban your protest.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @06:16AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @06:26PM (5 children)
The Constitution doesn't mention guns. The second amendment discusses the right to keep and bear "arms." It is not specific to guns. If the second amendment truly meant that governments were prohibited from imposing any sort of restrictions, this would mean that any and all weapons would have to be completely free of government restrictions. That means any type of arms, whether we're talking about swords, cannons, guns, grenades, Molotov cocktails, RPGs, missiles, and nuclear weapons. This, of course, is absurd, and there is no serious argument that people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons. Implicitly, we accept that regulation is necessary, and greater regulation is appropriate for arms that have greater capability to harm others. If we didn't regulate weapons differently based on their potential to cause harm, that would mean that we would regulate swords in the same way that we regulate nuclear weapons. We do not, and nobody is suggesting that it would be sensible to do that.
Therefore, determining an appropriate level of regulation means balancing the freedom to keep and bear arms against the valid state interest to prevent innocent people from being attacked with deadly weapons. When a weapon has a greater potential to inflict harm, this supports a greater degree of regulation. You need to show that the burden on freedom from those regulations outweighs the need for the regulations. Semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons have a greater potential to cause harm than guns that lack those capabilities. If you believe that regulating semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons is too great a limitation on your freedom, you need to show why it's unreasonable. That means demonstrating that you need such weapons, and that restricting them will harm you in a meaningful way.
If you can't explain why you need semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, it's a pretty good indication that it's appropriate to regulate them more.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @07:18PM (2 children)
You are correct, but they will bypass your logic by saying they may need to fight the government so they'll need the biggest baddest guns. It is silly, but explains why they focus so much on "shall not be infringed" while ignoring completely "well regulated militia." The strict interpretation would say states could ban guns entirely unless you're a member of the militia! Wouldn't that be great, gun lovers would have to regularly practice gun safety and be part of a real group.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @03:10AM (1 child)
Grammar means things. I find it interesting how people can insist year after year on an interpretation of normal English that is obviously bogus to anyone who actually reads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @05:27PM
Yeah no kidding /eyeroll
How come no fancy southern lawyer used that one to overturn all gun regulations? Gee whiz khallow, have you not shared your infinite wisdom elsewhere?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @12:32AM (1 child)
Keep in mind that you're imposing a burden on the freedom of law abiding people without actually doing much about the ones shooting people. Let's consider the following statement:
No, not the need, the benefit. There's not much point to talking about need, if your regulation doesn't help the need. There's so much terrible regulation out there in many areas - it's all driven by needs not rational cost/benefit analysis.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @03:06AM
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 08, @03:07PM
Some people need fully automatic weapons for showing off. Some people need them for home defense. Others need them for hunting porpoises.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @08:46PM (16 children)
The average person cannot purchase a fully automatic weapon in the United States. You'll have to come up with some serious citations showing otherwise. This is part of the reason the left and the right fail to reach any compromise - your side can't even carry on an intelligent conversation about the weapons they want to ban.
Let me help you: A semiautomatic weapon feeds a fresh round into the magazine each time the weapon is fired. Pull the trigger once, you get one shot, old round ejects, fresh round feeds, then you may release the trigger, and pull it again for another shot.
An automatic weapon will continue firing until you release the trigger, or the gun jams, or it runs out of ammunition. One trigger pull, and potentially tens, hundreds, or even thousands of rounds fly downrange.
That is as great a difference as that between a nice synchronized manual shift transmission, and an automatic transmission. Bolt action, lever action, and even pump shotguns might be equated to some of the older manual transmissions that never were syncrhonized, and tricks like double clutching were necessary to drive smoothly.
Stop to reload the gun after every shot? Yeah, sure, if you insist on returning to the 1700s. No six-shooters, no semi-auto pistols, no semi-auto shotguns, no pump shotguns, no bolt action rifles. You want single shot weapons, all around. If that isn't what you meant, then refer back to my earlier statement in this post.
I suspect that what you're actually trying to get at, is magazine capacity. For which, I have two answers:
1. Personally, I don't care if magazine capacity is limited to ten roungs, as many Democrats are pushing for. The battle rifle I carried in the military only held 20 rounds, IF we were issued the 20 round magazines. Most often, we made do with 10 round magazines, only once in my career did I wish that we had the larger magazines. (Never mind that we didn't generally load magazines to capacity.)
2. Politically speaking, government has no authority to limit the magazine capacity of weapons in the hands of civilians, unless they first limit the capacity of police magazines. If a civilian cop can carry 120 rounds, then Average Joe can carry 120 rounds. Note that I haven't used the military to justify large capacity magazines for private citizens, I've used the police. The county judge shouldn't command greater firepower than his constituents hold, it's just that simple.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:07PM
All this firearms expertise from a guy who did not realize that his Remington Model 700 .25-06 had a recall for a defective trigger mechanism? Spare us from your pretending to actually knowing anything about guns, Runaway, we all know you (allegedly) were in the Navy, where your primary weapon was a deck mop.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday May 08, @10:27PM (5 children)
I'm Canadian: up here, we don't need a great big gun that can kill lots of humans to prove we are men and women.
And yes, i do know the difference between fully and semi, i just don't follow your gun laws THAT closely. I just don't think talking about that constitutes 'Intelligent Conversation'.
No: what I'm 'getting at' is, why does having a big gun accessible to you make you feel like a bigger man?
But I guess I'm not being civil.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08, @11:20PM
You're losing the "big gun" argument, since the popular modern sporting arms are chambered for 6 and 7 mm, rather than "big" cartridges. When I was growing up, we called those 'varmint guns', because we wouldn't use them on big game, or humans. Rabbits, squirrels, coyote, and other smallish game.
And, no, I don't measure my manhood by the size of my weapons. Why do hoplophobic people do so?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @01:54AM (2 children)
I am the person who posted the first comment [soylentnews.org], which said that you weren't being civil. That was a response to the content of your journal.
If you review my posting history, you'll see that I've sharply criticized Runaway for his comments about fifty million dead progressives. His comment was disgusting, and any decent human being should find it utterly abhorrent. Despite this, Runaway refuses to walk back that comment. I do not apologize for any of the criticism I have directed toward him. At this point, I don't believe Runaway is of sound mind, because I do not believe a decent or reasonable person could advocate for mass murder.
There are key differences between your journal and Runaway's comments. Runaway advocates for the mass slaughtering of people simply because of their political views. Additionally, your journal is clearly sarcastic, whereas Runaway seems sincere in his desire for the mass murder of people who disagree with him.
Despite these differences, I found your journal to have an uncomfortable similarity to Runaway's comments, which I condemn. I absolutely support stronger gun control. I don't believe that we will solve the problem of gun violence by emulating the worst behavior from those with opposing views. I despise the hateful tone of Runaway's comments, but the solution is not to emulate that which I despise.
In fact, I have modded up some of your comments in this journal because I felt they were worthwhile and insightful. I do have a problem with advocating for violence, even in jest. I am not opposed to the ridiculing tone of your comment that I am replying to.
As for why people "need" weapons like what you are referring to, many of the staunchest opponents of war are motivated by things that Runaway has already expressed in previous comments in other journals. They are not arming for self defense but for war. This was plainly evident on January 6, 2021 when militia groups stowed caches of weapons just outside Washington with the intent of using them to force their desired outcome in the counting of electoral votes. I am very thankful that it never happened, but I am firmly convinced that many people opposing gun control are doing so because they are arming to wage war against the United States.
If I am the person you are referring to in your comment, I only criticized your journal. If I felt that your comments were uncivil, I would not have modded them up. I am just opposed to violence outside of actual self defense or to directly stop an individual from inflicting potentially lethal harm on an innocent person.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @02:11AM
Whoops... when I said staunchest opponents of war, I meant staunchest opponents of gun control.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 09, @04:19PM
Sorry, i wasn't saying i wasn't being civil in any way in response to your comment (if you get what i mean).
I just can't believe that these 'Republicans' can uphold the deaths of all these kids and people by saying "I have the right". They say the issue is not a gun issue, it's a mental health issue, while they're the ones that made the cuts to mental health care.
The same logic that says "Don't allow aborting unwanted kids", while cutting funds to child-care, orphanages, etc.
"Do as i say, while I'll give no support to solving the issues I have caused". Stupid 'logic'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday May 09, @05:53PM
Not for killing humans [youtu.be] up in that there Great White North. I can't believe how old this episode is at this point.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09, @11:29AM (8 children)
Fuck you, you fucking fucker ammosexual NRA cock holster! All liberals understand what "auto" means in the usual context of "semi, or auto-loading". What you fail to provide is a rationale for why and sportsman would ever require such an action, outside of it being the preferred rifle for killing people. Any clues, here? Self-defense against Meth-addled dear, that take multiple quick rounds to put down? Or Darkies? (By "Darkies", I mean much like the non-racist Runaway would, "coons", as in "Raccoons", not to be confused with Rocket or Bradley Cooper [or, Pau Cooper] taking a PTSD vet to the range for some more killing.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 09, @11:40AM (7 children)
No. They do not. They willingly and readily confuse the issue with their whole "weapons of war" bullshit. The term "assault rifle" is meaningless, with multiple groups and agencies utterly failing to provide a meaningful definition.
It's called 'The Bill of Rights', not the 'Bill of Needs' or 'Bill of Requirements'. I don't have to justify to you, or anyone, why I might prefer a bolt action, a pump action, a semi-automatic, or even an automatic weapon.
But, you keep hammering your propaganda line, Ari.
Let me say it again: If the police can have it, then the population at large is entitled to it. I refuse to live in a police state.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @05:14PM (3 children)
Despite it not being true, your news sources push that on you because they're scraping the bottom of the barrel. "Lots of people dead, including children, for the umpteenth time! We're solving this problem once and for all: AR doesn't mean assault rifle!" *crosses arms smugly*
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday May 09, @05:55PM (2 children)
But the "JR" in JR-15 [wee1tactical.com] stands for ... freedom?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @06:19PM (1 child)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday May 09, @09:22PM
No, no, it's obviously going to make it *less* desirable for kids because the characters are so spooooky! Too bad they dog-whistled in the movie by making the tunes so catchy, though.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @07:11PM (2 children)
The police in Ulvade came up with a definition. [texastribune.org]
Basically they defined the AR as: "We need to wait an hour for the team with bigger guns to arrive."
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 09, @08:12PM (1 child)
A bunch of cowards don't create very meaningful definitions. A large number of cops present at Uvalde outgunned the kille. I mean, a large number of the cops, as individuals. You may or may not be aware that cops don't generally carry off-the-shelf retail versions of the AR? Ohhhh, no, cops generally carry versions valued triple or more the value of what the general public usually pays.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 09, @08:28PM
You have utterly no idea how far this statement reaches.
Well I was talking about the cops being overpowered... Good grief, it's like trying to get my cat to see the treat I just dropped on the ground in front of him.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩