Mass Shootings the last six months

[TulsaRufnex]

Actually, I go by what is actually defined BY the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;  consisting of the Constitution itself, any and all ratified treaties, and the Code of Federal Regulations.  Wherein "my" interpretation of rights derives.  Nobody, except your "jump to extremist postion" conclusion has said that I feel I have the right to unlimited access to all forms of gunnery.  I feel - and I am again, BY DEFINITION, reinforced in that feeling that I have the right to have any or all of the firearms allowed by the supreme law of the land.  That includes machine guns....... blah blah blah...
......................................... Brady Mafia has...

I know constitutional lawyers... we have a POTUS who taught constitutional law.
You're starting to sound like a conservative evangelical trying to tell people how much you know about the book of Leviticus.

The "Brady Mafia?"
More like the NRA mafia... especially after the vicious tirade I heard from Mr. LaPierre last week.

The NRA mafia has made sure that the majority's desires (including the majority of gun owners I know who live NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line) are subservient to the fantasy world inhabited by neo-confederates and "survivalists" who can't wait for the day they get to "take their country back" by "watering the tree of liberty."  

I used to hold a different (more libertarian & pro-gun) view.
But after hearing LaPierre's DEFIANT rallying cry, I've decided enough is enough.
I believe a silent majority of gun owners have views that more closely resemble my own.

[TulsaRufnex]

Only if you felt the need or were inclined to defend yourself.  If you feel like just letting it happen to you, that too, is your choice and you are always free to make that choice.  Seems like that is just about as stupid as all you other arguments advancing gun control, but hey, that's what the country has come to expect from the Brady Organization.  Illiterate, illogical tripe, with actually so little basis in fact as to be worse than worthless.  But hey, that again, is yet ANOTHER one of those pesky 'inalienable' rights ensconced in the US Constitution...1st Amendment...you remember that one, don't you?  The one just immediately before the one you want to abrogate so badly.

So, let's review - YOU want your rights to embrace and enjoy to the fullest, and yet, at the same time want to impose an arbitrary "will" to eliminate the exercise of mine.  Ok.
You really wanna go there, huh??  Ok...let's go.

Wait.  Didn't read this one.... you didn't even get my point.

That's because you've never been mugged.  And after reading Gas's unsympathetic stereotypes that blame the victim, well... bet he's never been mugged either.
This has NOTHING to do with whether I'm "inclined" to defend myself.  I did.  To the best of my ability. 
You've been reading too many pro-gun propaganda stories about how guns stop crime.
If I had expert training in all aspects of shooting a handgun, what good is that gonna do me if I get jumped from behind?
Hey, maybe I'm stronger than that twentysomething male and the other two shadowy figures I couldn't see... so I take that gun and during the struggle it goes off... too bad that little girl was in the line of fire... tragic, really.  But I know my constitutional rights and therefore that little girl and her parents don't have any right "to impose an arbitrary "will" to eliminate the exercise of mine."
Whose fault would that be?  Not mine.  I mean, I was just exercising my constitutionally guaranteed right to carry a gun wherever I damn well please... in a densely populated urban neighborhood...
So, when you arrogantly act like I "feel like just letting it happen" you have absolutely no clue.
This is real life.  This is not some Clint Eastwood or John Wayne movie.  

Ask the friend of mine who worked for Chicago PD for decades.
Ask the "armed security" off duty deputy at Columbine HS.

But hey, I'm just being so unreasonable by trying to limit your constitutional right to own any weaponry you choose (hmmm, can you sell me some biological weapons?  I'm a law-abiding citizen, just afraid of the gubmint!)... and I guess those rights trump all consideration of public safety.

AT THE SAME TIME, most of those same misguided are also rabidly frothing at the mouth to enable a 'right' that has no text, nor reference, nor standing in history or law for almost 200 years after the founding.  The ongoing massacre and slaughter of over 1 million children per year, one kid at a time, by their mothers, and the performance of that killing, hundreds if not thousands of times per year, by the doctors enlisted to be complicit in that massacre of abortions.

False equivalency.  But hey, put those mothers in prison... lock em up and throw away the key.  That'll sure teach em.  

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wait.  Didn't read this one.... you didn't even get my point.

That's because you've never been mugged.  And after reading Gas's unsympathetic stereotypes that blame the victim, well... bet he's never been mugged either.
This has NOTHING to do with whether I'm "inclined" to defend myself.  I did.  To the best of my ability. 
You've been reading too many pro-gun propaganda stories about how guns stop crime.
If I had expert training in all aspects of shooting a handgun, what good is that gonna do me if I get jumped from behind?
Hey, maybe I'm stronger than that twentysomething male and the other two shadowy figures I couldn't see... so I take that gun and during the struggle it goes off... too bad that little girl was in the line of fire... tragic, really.  But I know my constitutional rights and therefore that little girl and her parents don't have any right "to impose an arbitrary "will" to eliminate the exercise of mine."
Whose fault would that be?  Not mine.  I mean, I was just exercising my constitutionally guaranteed right to carry a gun wherever I damn well please... in a densely populated urban neighborhood...
So, when you arrogantly act like I "feel like just letting it happen" you have absolutely no clue.
This is real life.  This is not some Clint Eastwood or John Wayne movie.  

Ask the friend of mine who worked for Chicago PD for decades.
Ask the "armed security" off duty deputy at Columbine HS.

But hey, I'm just being so unreasonable by trying to limit your constitutional right to own any weaponry you choose (hmmm, can you sell me some biological weapons?  I'm a law-abiding citizen, just afraid of the gubmint!)... and I guess those rights trump all consideration of public safety.

Still haven't read it.  I didn't say you feel or don't feel - I said that IF you have feelings either way - that is your choice.  Nice try to deflect, though.

As for being mugged - you have no idea if I have been mugged or not.  (I haven't - so NOW you know - but I have been attacked twice by someone intentionally shooting at me with definite intent to kill - have talked about that before...maybe you didn't read those yet either).

Yeah...too many pro-gun stories from FBI crime statistics.  Another nice try to deflect... reality just keeps poking it's ugly little head out doesn't it?

And you do realize that the scenario you paint - so completely unlikely as it is - the law has treated and defined for a long long time.  The people mugging you, by definition would be guilty of whatever damage/injury accrues to that crime.  Which is where the whole whole idea of YOU deciding whether you want to use a gun to defend yourself or not.  You definitely have a better chance of prevention than if you don't have one - your choice.  And there is a possibility others could be hurt - if you look in depth at the numbers you would know it actually doesn't happen.  By far and away, criminals driving around doing their "drive bys" kill a statistically small number, but many more that you would "accidentally" defending yourself.

And obviously didn't read what I said about the types of arms I feel I have the right to own.  You sure you read any of these posts??

[heironymouspasparagus]

Law abiding citizens should never have UNRESTRICTED RIGHTS to assault weapons that have no use other than to kill scores of human beings.
Once a law abiding citizen doesn't mean that citizen will always be law abiding... our latest mass murderer had no criminal record... his mother was teaching him to shoot, er uh, defend himself...
 

And another one of your Brady Bunch Delusional Fantasies...there ARE NO unrestricted rights.  Have not been for many decades - since the 30's.  Buy hey, when you can make a point by lying about it, why not?  It has worked for at least 30 years for the RWRE, so why shouldn't the LWRE use the same tactic?  Oh, wait...that's right - the Brady Organization has done it for decades, too.

And now, given your expression of support, does this mean that you too are joining the ranks of pathological liars?? 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Baseball bats are not manufactured for the sole intent of killing people.
You are the uneducated and ranting one.
You are the one doing rhetorical gymnastics about your right to own any and every weapon invented for warfare... because criminals will get their hands on them anyway, so "law-abiding citizens" must have one, or two, or five, or ten, or a hundred... what an interesting sense of entitlement that must be... just can't be bothered to limit that right in any reasonable way, shape or form...
 

And yet, they are the biggest tool of murder in this country.

Guns are not manufactured for the sole intent of killing people - as you would know if you knew anything about the wide range of shooting sports enjoyed by millions of law abiding people in this country.  Wouldn't expect someone to understand that whose so dismissively and frivolously says just put all those mothers in jail...

Wonder how many soccer deaths occur each year?  Maybe that's why American's just aren't into soccer that much - the fans?  Perhaps the Coldhardfootballfact guy can put it in perspective for you.

"Few if any of these articles seem to consider the more obvious but politically incorrect reason why American's do not embrace soccer: Soccer fans riot and kill each other with frightening frequency. As a result, the sport has a well-deserved reputation for senseless fan violence and destruction here in the United States.

Put another way, soccer fans are lunatics with a violent and unhealthy attachment to the sport. Like Nazis, plagues, famines, Julio Eglesias, world wars, coups, military dictators, Che, absinthe, cocaine, Cliff Richard and most of Europe's and South America's other notable contributions to the modern world, soccer and its crazy f*ckin' fans are best kept at a safe distance from our shores."

...

"If you wonder why Americans don't care for soccer, the senseless violence seems as good a reason as any. Typically when Americans hear about international soccer, it's in the context of some riot, murder, deadly stampede, stadium collapse or rash of hooliganism."




http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/most-dangerous-sports.asp

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/maybe-this-is-why-americans-shun-pro-soccer/7378/

[TulsaRufnex]

Wow.  You compare guns to baseball bats and abortion.  
False equivalency.
And now soccer... talk about "deflecting."

If the kid in Connecticut had broken into an elementary school using a baseball bat, it would have been tragic.
But not nearly as tragic as the weapon he used to mow down a bunch of kids...

As for soccer, now you're just grasping at straws....
http://thekingsview.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-real-conservatives-love-soccer.html

And since you've seen fit to compare gun deaths to abortion... strangely enough, I hold the view that handguns should be "safe, legal, and rare"...
If gun owners had the same access to guns as women have to abortion providers...

1.  There'd be only one licensed firearms dealer in the state of Mississippi... and the state will eventually close it down to prevent "back-room gun purchases."
2.  Gun buyers would be forced to visit state-sponsored gun control "crisis centers" before being allowed to purchase weapons.
3.  Gun buyers would be forced to watch videos of graphic gun violence produced by gun control advocates before they can purchase weapons.

What the Debates over Gun Control & Abortion May Teach Us
Posted on July 28, 2012
http://southwhitehall.patch.com/blog_posts/what-the-debates-over-gun-control-abortion-may-teach-us

Unfortunately, we’ll never eliminate all abortions or gun deaths. (I think everyone, left and right, would agree with that.)  Yet, overwhelming majorities, consisting of conservatives and liberals, would agree that we should do whatever we can to reduce the number of abortions and the number of gun deaths as much as we reasonably can. To reach those goals, it is unacceptable to simply say that we should have no restrictions simply because some will still do what we’re trying to prevent. And it is unacceptable to simply say that there is no limitation that may be placed upon what we deem to be a right.

At some level most all of us agree in principle (as evidenced by liberal arguments for gun control and by conservative arguments for abortion control) that rights have their limitations. Could it be that the left and the right have more agreement than they actually realize?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

[guido911]

This nails it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

[dbacks fan]

This nails it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

Nails what guido? The fact that we are tired of people killing wholesale? The fact that we as a country have more guns than the rest of the world? That we want to end the tragedies that have happend over the last 30 years? The genie has been long out of the bottle on this. You don't even need a gun, you can fly your airplane into an IRS building, you can rent a truck and make a huge ANFO bomb, you can shove someone in front of a subway train, you can use a car as a weapon. I still think that alot of these events are done by people who have mental health issues, and we continually cover up those issues because of the stigma of the mental health system in the US. No one wants to talk about it because of the way people were treated in the past. You can look at what was Hissom, and you can see why mental health is the way that it is. When people have problems, it's treated after the fact. We as a society are in denial about these issues. It's covered up and buried, because no one wants to admit they have a problem, or that a family member has a problem. I'm not saying that we need the "asylums" of the past, we need to address issues, and have doctors or analysts that don't spend the required 15 minutes, and prescribe a drug to help with the issue. And yes I know about alternative counseling, through a church and support groups because I have had my own issues with anger management, and things that have happened in my life in the last five years.

[BKDotCom]

This nails it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

The only thing that nails is that celebrities, after having portrayed many a violent gun scene, come across as hypocritical when asking for tougher gun laws.
Pointing out celebrity hypocrisy has never been a challenge.

[AquaMan]

D'back, we continue to look at symptoms and diagnose from conflicting indications rather than looking holistically at the sickness. That's why people point fingers at the NRA, the celebrities, the politicians, the guns themselves. Take a page from the "House" philosophy. One, all patients are liars.  Two, look in the environment of the patient for evidence of the cause of the symptoms. Then you can diagnose and treat the disease.

To wit:
-We are plagued with drug driven populations. Bears repeating. We have drug problems. Fosters mental illness.
-We have to endure unequal opportunity for success, education and justice. Money buys easy access to those critical elements. That leads to wildly disparate and concentrated wealth the rest of the first world countries don't have to cope with.
-Our population is easily swayed by stupid leaders who are bought and sold. The result is more prisons, more violence, less public education support, more gambling (both in casinos and in Wall Street) and emphasis on "simple" solutions.
-And most importantly, we refuse to recognize the reality of this environment I described. Its a mental illness when what you see, does not represent what is real. Its tragedy when the rest of your life is based on those false perceptions. That's why we can't reach agreement on fiscal problems, social change and science.

I don't think its a co-incidence that programs on the French Revolution, the Roman Empire, the rise of the Nazi party and numerous conspiracy movies are top of mind right now. Robespierre's "Rights of Man" loses meaning when you define a corporation as a man.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gee...wonder why this hasn't been in the national news constantly for the last couple of weeks...oh, yeah...it shows how an armed person can defend people and stop what could have been another movie massacre.  But that wouldn't fit the agenda, now, would it...?


Off duty deputy stops a gunman heading into movie theater.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX

[AquaMan]

You're acting like a conspiracy enthusiast. Agenda? You are smarter than this.

What happened is what a real estate agent would call "a non comparable". It wasn't even reported what gun he was using, whether he was dressed in armored clothing, or had a well prepared plan. He was just a jilted lover who started shooting at marked police cars outside a theatre. But you wanted the press to cover it nationwide?

Not really comparable. Not even a different story from what happens on Friday, Saturday, New Years eve all over the country. Now, if he had been carrying a 100 round clip and a Bushmaster and the guy who shot him dead wasn't an off duty guard....

[RecycleMichael]

...it shows how an armed person can defend people and stop what could have been another movie massacre. 

Could is the appropriate word here. It seems like this was a fight between two people, not a madman trying to kill innocent people. That is the reason why there is minimal national coverage.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You're acting like a conspiracy enthusiast. Agenda? You are smarter than this.

What happened is what a real estate agent would call "a non comparable". It wasn't even reported what gun he was using, whether he was dressed in armored clothing, or had a well prepared plan. He was just a jilted lover who started shooting at marked police cars outside a theatre. But you wanted the press to cover it nationwide?

Not really comparable. Not even a different story from what happens on Friday, Saturday, New Years eve all over the country. Now, if he had been carrying a 100 round clip and a Bushmaster and the guy who shot him dead wasn't an off duty guard....

It was a girl off duty guard.

And a real estate agent would be wrong.  Remember the list at the beginning of this post?  If this was non-comparable, several of those would be same.  Some didn't even use a .223 for the act.  So what would constitute a noteworthy - from this, I can only get the impression that it must be successful in it's goal to kill (even one of the first page only killed 3) and can NOT have been thwarted by an armed person.  Even though it is a valid example of how this can of thing can and is thwarted.  But, as I stated before, that wouldn't play into the agenda, would it? 

You really believe there isn't an agenda?  Even with the obvious collusion between the Brady Bunch type organizations and the national anti-gun media.  CNN.  CBS.  NBC.  Just a few particular examples.  And right back at ya.... YOU are MUCH smarter than this!  (I've seen the evidence in past posts!)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Could is the appropriate word here. It seems like this was a fight between two people, not a madman trying to kill innocent people. That is the reason why there is minimal national coverage.

Newtown could very obviously be considered a fight between two people - he shot his mother... then consciously went elsewhere to pursue the rest of his abominable act.

This guy went to the restaurant where his "issue" was, shot a couple rounds, then consciously went elsewhere - a movie theater - firing a couple shots until he was shot by the lady.  Obviously there was at least a similar intent, even if there was inadequate infrastructure to do the kind of damage the Newtown person did or the Oregon theater guy did..  The difference is in degree only - he was stopped early in the process.  He was probably drunk, too, so that may have helped prevent the worse scenario.  


Locally;
Given what we have seen with the success some of these people have had in recent years, it still amazes me that our very own Tim Harris, D.A. and Judge Glassco, in the case were able to allow a guy to coast who plead guilty - or tried to - to the crime of trying to kill two minors with a Chinese assault weapon - an SKS 7.62 x 39.  And when the drunk cocked the gun and pulled the trigger and it did not fire, discovering that he had not actually loaded the 30 shot magazine he had in the assault rifle, went back into the house, got a fully loaded Glock .40 and came back out and pointed it at the same two minors, who disappeared into a house before he had the chance to pull the trigger that time.  It worked out to the kids advantage that he was drunk.  I'm sure they just thought it was one of those "boys will be boys" moments with someone who was related to the guy happening to be 'good ole boy' buddies...

But the defendant did have to pay $100 to the court fund, and $100 victim's compensation.  Plus costs.

So was this the fault of the SKS or the defendant and the Tulsa County Court structure?  Had to be the gun's fault, right?