Topic: Top Republican Shot in Multiple Shooting

[Red Beret]

If the Republicans had not been there, would the shooter have been there?  If the shooter had been there but the Republicans had not, would the federal police have been around to avert a massacre?

Nobody wants to see innocents hurt and killed; nor officers of the law injured or killed in the line of duty.  A gun advocating Republican hoisted by the lax gun laws he has championed?  Yes, I get some sense of bloodthirsty satisfaction over that.  Not joy, but a grim smile; a definite sense of karma and a distinct lack of sympathy.

Maybe I'd feel differently if he'd died.  I wouldn't have felt happy, nor would I feel he deserved it.  But I would have felt he'd paid the piper for his political stance.  Plus the sense of irony at becoming just one more gun crime statistic.

Sorry if that offends but he made his bed and my sympathy isn't unconditional in such matters.

[Giono]

So tell me again how making it easier for mentally challenged people to own guns is making the voters feel safe?

Because they can return fire.
I'm not pro guns. Just stating things as I see them.

The irony is that there were several people packing in that Colorado movie theatre that got shot up. And in this case today there were armed cops with fire-arms, but what are you going to do against a rapid firing long gun?

[Chakan]

Because they can return fire.
I'm not pro guns. Just stating things as I see them.

The irony is that there were several people packing in that Colorado movie theatre that got shot up. And in this case today there were armed cops with fire-arms, but what are you going to do against a rapid firing long gun?

Are you serious? Mentally challenged people who have been deemed unfit to handle their own finances are allowed to buy guns, so they can return fire.

[JHova2427]

So tell me again how making it easier for mentally challenged people to own guns is making the voters feel safe?

Was the shooter mentally challenged?  If so, by what designation/basis?  Because he shot people due to disagreements in politics?  We only know that now.

[Chakan]

Was the shooter mentally challenged?  If so, by what designation/basis?  Because he shot people due to disagreements in politics?  We only know that now.

Did you read the post I was replying to ?

[JHova2427]

Did you read the post I was replying to ?

I did.  What basis are we using to judge that people are mentally challenged and therefore deniable of a right that is allowed U.S. citizens?

[Chakan]

I did.  What basis are we using to judge that people are mentally challenged and therefore deniable of a right that is allowed U.S. citizens?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/guns-mental-health-rule/index.html

That's the  armaments industry yes?

Anyway this shooting will change nothing, there will continue to be lax guns laws in the US. Absolutely nothing will happen while politicians line their pockets with NRA money and seek to lessen the guns laws.

No amount of violence will change the current status quo in the US.

That's my last of it.

[JHova2427]

If the Republicans had not been there, would the shooter have been there?  If the shooter had been there but the Republicans had not, would the federal police have been around to avert a massacre?

Nobody wants to see innocents hurt and killed; nor officers of the law injured or killed in the line of duty.  A gun advocating Republican hoisted by the lax gun laws he has championed?  Yes, I get some sense of bloodthirsty satisfaction over that.  Not joy, but a grim smile; a definite sense of karma and a distinct lack of sympathy.

Maybe I'd feel differently if he'd died.  I wouldn't have felt happy, nor would I feel he deserved it.  But I would have felt he'd paid the piper for his political stance.  Plus the sense of irony at becoming just one more gun crime statistic.

Sorry if that offends but he made his bed and my sympathy isn't unconditional in such matters.

If the shooter had not incessantly listened to divisive rhetoric from pundits would he have been there?  It is definitely proof to a certain extent of the degradation of the politics in the U.S. since this past election.  It's extremely depressing. 

[JHova2427]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/guns-mental-health-rule/index.html

That's the  armaments industry yes?

Anyway this shooting will change nothing, there will continue to be lax guns laws in the US. Absolutely nothing will happen while politicians line their pockets with NRA money and seek to lessen the guns laws.

No amount of violence will change the current status quo in the US.

That's my last of it.

Fair enough.  I still say there is a lot more nuance involved here regarding Americans and their infatuation with guns.  I think there is a lot of naivety involved on both sides. 

Potentially denying a hand gun to a person because of an anxiety disorder doesn't scream fair to me if everyone else is legally allowed to own one. 

[SP]

If the shooter had not incessantly listened to divisive rhetoric from pundits would he have been there?  It is definitely proof to a certain extent of the degradation of the politics in the U.S. since this past election.  It's extremely depressing. 

Bollocks it's since the last election. It dates back to the Tea Party where the GOP decided that partisan interest was more important than the national interest. Trump just pushed it further.

[RedRabbit]

If he couldn't buy a gun would he have been there?

[JHova2427]

Bollocks it's since the last election. It dates back to the Tea Party where the GOP decided that partisan interest was more important than the national interest. Trump just pushed it further.

I don't honestly recall hearing congressman constantly called treasonous or murderers for their actions as congressman.  It seems to have been upped a notch in my opinion. 

[JHova2427]

If he couldn't buy a gun would he have been there?

Maybe he would have set up a pipe bomb.

[SP]

Maybe he would have set up a pipe bomb.

That's terrorism. Only people from Muslim countries that aren't strategically important do that.

[Alan_X]

I would argue people get a sick bit of joy when things like this happen.  It's a bit naive to think otherwise.  Saw the word schadenfreude thrown around, which alludes to joy or enjoyment.

Not to mention it wasn't only a Republican Representative that was shot, but there were a few federal police officers that were shot and a senator's 10 year old son was shoved under a bench in the dugout for protection. 

So wouldn't it be good if someone did something about gun control? I can't see anyone being happy about the officers being shot.

12,000 gun homicides every year in the US... 93 Americans every day killed by guns, 7 children every day killed by guns, America's gun homicide rate is 25 times any other developed country, in an average month 50 women are shot to death by their partners, the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it 5 times more likely the woman will be shot and killed, bl;ack men are 14 times more likely to be shot and killed than white men... (figures from the CDC)

Of course no one should be shot - that's err... the point.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Is finding joy in people being shot not passionate?

Like the tossers on that field would have felt when George Tiller was shot after a campaign against him on fox news that lasted months until his death

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I don't honestly recall hearing congressman constantly called treasonous or murderers for their actions as congressman.  It seems to have been upped a notch in my opinion.

You have to be kidding me,did you have your head in a hole for the whole of Obamas presidency ?

[Alan_X]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/iTACH1eVIaA?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/iTACH1eVIaA?fs=1</a>

[WhereAngelsPlay]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/iTACH1eVIaA?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/iTACH1eVIaA?fs=1</a>

FAKE NEWS !!!!!  a perfect example of MSM being at its most unfair.

[Giono]

Are you serious? Mentally challenged people who have been deemed unfit to handle their own finances are allowed to buy guns, so they can return fire.

I`m guessing at the BS that gun supporters would give. Not my logic. I personally believe that gun ownership should not only be restricted...but that they must be stored at private gun clubs outside of cities...and making carrying a long gun in a city a criminal offence. 

[Giono]

I did.  What basis are we using to judge that people are mentally challenged and therefore deniable of a right that is allowed U.S. citizens?

The inevitable byproduct of the anti-government logic of the pro-gun lobby is political assassination.

You`d be deprived of a drivers licence, no?

[GreatEx]

If he couldn't buy a gun would he have been there?

Depends - did he own a van and a knife?

[Brissyred]

Potentially denying a hand gun to a person because of an anxiety disorder doesn't scream fair to me if everyone else is legally allowed to own one.

Seriously? and you wonder why the US has a problem

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Potentially denying a hand gun to a person because of an anxiety disorder doesn't scream fair to me if everyone else is legally allowed to own one.

But removing children from the home of a mentally ill person is ok I suppose ?

And just to be clear,we are talking about people who have been declared unfit to even manage their own finances.

[Alan_X]

Depends - did he own a van and a knife?

Not sure of your point. If the three attackers in London had been able to shop in Walmart the number of dead could have been in the tens or hundreds.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

House of Representatives Majority Whip Steve Scalise and aides have been hit by gunfire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40275055

They need more guns. That would have stopped this happening.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

When people asked xenophobic questions like this of the recent attacks in Manchester and London people rightly took offense. You may not like the politics of those involved but try to act like a human being.

If there was a charity football match between Tories and Labour to raise money for children in need, and a gunman shot up those practicing, I would hope that you would not be so callous in regards to the victims, regardless of party affiliation. 

It's fairly unlikely in the UK. We haven't got ridiculous gun laws that let any nutter just go in, buy a gun, hundreds of rounds of ammo and then walk around with it.

The rate (per 100,000 people) in the UK: Homicides by gun: 0.06 (2011)
The rate (per 100,000 people) in the US: Homicides by gun: 3.43 (2014)


Number of people shot dead (Homicide) in the UK 2016: 21
Number of people shot dead (Homicide) in the US 2016: 15,056


The US is fucking stupid with its gun laws.

[Crimson_Tank]

While I do think that there needs to be some massive reform in regards to gun laws in the states, a few posters made the point that illegally purchased firearms are a massive issue. While others shot that idea down (poor metaphor I know). Having lived in close proximity to cities where there was major gun violence, the highest in America per capita, I would agree that illegally purchased guns are indeed a huge problem in Americas cities, where most of the gun violence occurs.

Look at this Washington Post article on "mass shootings."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/14/the-gop-baseball-shooting-is-the-154th-mass-shooting-this-year/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.a68a1d1e0721

Stating that, by one definition the GOP baseball shooting is the 154 "mass shooting in the last 165 days.

Number of mass shootings is defined as 4+ victims not including the shooter, victims need not die but could be wounded.

However, if we read on beyond the headline we get to this paragraph, take a look at the last sentence.

The archive considers an incident a mass shooting if four or more people are shot, not including the shooter. Some definitions are broader: If the shooter is included in the tally, the number of mass shootings rises to 195. Some, however, are much more narrow: If a mass shooting is defined as four or more victims killed in a public location, excluding robberies and gang violence, the number falls to four.

There are massive numbers of gun violence related fatalities and injuries in the states for sure, but a huge percentage of such violence is due to gang related violence in Americas cities: Chicago, LA, Baltimore, St. Louis, DC, New York, Boston.... Last year alone Chicago ended 2016 with 762 homicides, many of which were gang related...

Superintendent Eddie Johnson

Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson discusses crime in the city in 2016 and shares the department's strategy for handling crime in 2017 during a news conference Jan. 1, 2017, at Chicago police headquarters in the Bronzeville community.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-two-shot-to-death-in-uptown-marks-first-homicide-of-2017-20170101-story.html

It is actually safer to be on active duty in Afghanistan then it is to walk the streets of Chicago. Something that I do not forget having lost friends in Afghanistan and having friends both living in Chicago and working as policemen in Chicago.

For an easy breakdown of numbers and percentages of Chicago gang violence: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/fullpage/chicago-gang-violence-numbers-17509042

[JHova2427]

It is actually safer to be on active duty in Afghanistan then it is to walk the streets of Chicago. Something that I do not forget having lost friends in Afghanistan and having friends both living in Chicago and working as policemen in Chicago.

For an easy breakdown of numbers and percentages of Chicago gang violence: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/fullpage/chicago-gang-violence-numbers-17509042

Also, many people in Chicago do not particularly care about this gun violence because it is highly concentrated in areas that they will never even venture into.  This is also very common in many urban areas.

Many of the points you state are a reason I believe this is much more nuanced than "take their guns."  There has been an absurd proliferation of guns in the states many legally and many illegally.  If the government forced the turnover of guns and every legally owned and registered gun was turned in there would still be tens of thousands of guns on the streets.  I would say tens of thousands would be a conservative estimate. 

[JHova2427]

The inevitable byproduct of the anti-government logic of the pro-gun lobby is political assassination.

You`d be deprived of a drivers licence, no?

Being legally allowed to drive is a state's allowance.  It isn't a constitutionally granted right.  This is why there is so much push back on Voter ID laws.  As a constitutional right, many argue requiring an ID to vote would infringe upon that right.

[B0151?]

While I do think that there needs to be some massive reform in regards to gun laws in the states, a few posters made the point that illegally purchased firearms are a massive issue. While others shot that idea down (poor metaphor I know). Having lived in close proximity to cities where there was major gun violence, the highest in America per capita, I would agree that illegally purchased guns are indeed a huge problem in Americas cities, where most of the gun violence occurs.

Aren't a lot of the illegally purchased guns stolen though? The more legal guns there are, the more illegal guns there will be. You can't separate the two. They end up making their way into Mexico and undermine their gun control attempts also, from what I remember reading

[Crimson_Tank]

Also, many people in Chicago do not particularly care about this gun violence because it is highly concentrated in areas that they will never even venture into.  This is also very common in many urban areas.

Many of the points you state are a reason I believe this is much more nuanced than "take their guns."  There has been an absurd proliferation of guns in the states many legally and many illegally.  If the government forced the turnover of guns and every legally owned and registered gun was turned in there would still be tens of thousands of guns on the streets.  I would say tens of thousands would be a conservative estimate. 

Exactly my point. Gun violence in cities makes up the bulk of statistics regarding firearms and casualties (deaths and injuries), most of it is concentrated to pockets controlled by gangs. This inflates the numbers in cities, when actually most of the offenses are made away from the majority of citizens. Turning the wrong corner or walking just one block in the wrong direction will drastically change the probability of being a victim of gun violence in Chicago and in many American cities.

Tens of thousands of illegal guns would be a gross under statement indeed. Hence the major problem!

[SP]

Also, many people in Chicago do not particularly care about this gun violence because it is highly concentrated in areas that they will never even venture into.  This is also very common in many urban areas.

Many of the points you state are a reason I believe this is much more nuanced than "take their guns."  There has been an absurd proliferation of guns in the states many legally and many illegally.  If the government forced the turnover of guns and every legally owned and registered gun was turned in there would still be tens of thousands of guns on the streets.  I would say tens of thousands would be a conservative estimate. 

So because they are poor ethnic minority victims, they don't count?

[Crimson_Tank]

Aren't a lot of the illegally purchased guns stolen though? The more legal guns there are, the more illegal guns there will be. You can't separate the two. They end up making their way into Mexico and undermine their gun control attempts also, from what I remember reading

Some are stolen and then not reported, but also many are imported illegally from places like Mexico, the Philippians, and Southeast Asia. Sure some guns make it into Mexico and some guns come from Mexico into the states. This has been reduced slightly with some of the crackdowns on the cartels in Mexico as well as the increasing number of states legalizing pot, which reduces the reliance of American drug users on recreational drugs from south of the border, thus reducing the illegal trade in arms as well.

The major increase in gun violence in the states began with the increase of drugs in the late 70's and early 80's. Cocaine build Miami and build the foundations for continued gang and gun violence throughout the states.

Yes America has gun problems, but America also has a Gun Culture, and changing culture is difficult.

[Crimson_Tank]

So because they are poor ethnic minority victims, they don't count?

They do count SP, but until recently, most gang violence was directed at other gang members.... I say recently because this happend not too long ago and it changed everything... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/27/chicago-man-arrested-charged-in-9-year-old-tyshawn-lees-execution-style-murder/?utm_term=.4d8540dd1ee4

After this there was a change in the way gang violence was carried out, this altered the balence and more innocents and kids were being killed and targeted.

Even children of cops.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-teen-charged-death-chicago-police-officer-son-20170505-story.html

Murder is murder plain and simple in the eyes of the law, but murder is not so cut and dry when you look at statistics.

[JHova2427]

So because they are poor ethnic minority victims, they don't count?

That is seriously putting words in my mouth.  I am also not sure what point you are making.  The poor ethnic minority victims are being shot by poor ethnic minority victims, and they are generally using illegally owned guns. 

Chicago is run by Democrats who oppose gun ownership as a general rule and they are voted into power by those ethnic minority victims as well as the wealthy minority and non-minority people scattered around the rest of the city.  (EDIT: Of course, a local, city government can't do it all in regards to deterring gun violence.)

Generally speaking, the unfortunate truth is these people are centralized in low income and dangerous areas that the vast majority of people can very easily avoid and therefore feel generally safe in a city with very high crime.  So people end up allowing them to hurt each other and ignore it as a whole.  Sad, but true.

[Caligula?]

Yes America has gun problems, but America also has a Gun Culture, and changing culture is difficult.

And this just about sums it up. I have a degree in political science and remember sitting through a violence in America course (or US violence, can't remember the name) as an assistant to a professor not so long ago, and guns were naturally a topic of discussion. As a student I remember the gun debate popping up on many occasions as well.

The gist of it is that things will never change in America in terms of guns. Guns are part of American folklore and history, and in a sense they made America. And that's without even adding the inluence and massive amounts of money gun manufacturers and the gun lobby splash in Washington to keep their products flowing.

[SP]

And this just about sums it up. I have a degree in political science and remember sitting through a violence in America course (or US violence, can't remember the name) as an assistant to a professor not so long ago, and guns were naturally a topic of discussion. As a student I remember the gun debate popping up on many occasions as well.

The gist of it is that things will never change in America in terms of guns. Guns are part of American folklore and history, and in a sense they made America. And that's without even adding the inluence and massive amounts of money gun manufacturers and the gun lobby splash in Washington to keep their products flowing.

America was built on slavery. There was a substantial lobby that made a lot of money from slaves. Never is a long time. It is a multi-generational problem, but it will probably be solved long after we are all dead.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

And this just about sums it up. I have a degree in political science and remember sitting through a violence in America course (or US violence, can't remember the name) as an assistant to a professor not so long ago, and guns were naturally a topic of discussion. As a student I remember the gun debate popping up on many occasions as well.

The gist of it is that things will never change in America in terms of guns. Guns are part of American folklore and history, and in a sense they made America. And that's without even adding the inluence and massive amounts of money gun manufacturers and the gun lobby splash in Washington to keep their products flowing.

I've spoken to a few Americans about guns when I've been over there. There are some very, very liberal Americans. But most of the 'guns nuts' just can't be reasoned with. Some I spoke to had tens of guns, crossbows, shotguns, pistols, rifles. One lad I know owns a Grenade Launcher attachment on his M16 rifle. I mean, it what world would that be necessary?!

I always thought it was illegal but amazingly it ISN'T!!

http://www.craveonline.co.uk/mandatory/1058224-the-10-most-insane-weapons-you-can-legally-own

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1472121/Semi-automatics-and-grenade-launchers-are-legal-again-in-US.html

[Caligula?]

America was built on slavery. There was a substantial lobby that made a lot of money from slaves. Never is a long time. It is a multi-generational problem, but it will probably be solved long after we are all dead.

Economically, yes. But think of westward expansion/Manifest Destiny. The West was conquered and tamed with guns, or at least that's how it's been portrayed for generations. Gun-slinging cowboys like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. Never really is a long time, but guns really are part of the culture like no place else and I doubt it will be solved any time soon.