Yet another shooting
 

Here we go again..

https://news.sky.com/story/police-of...oting-11547986

To be honest what can anyone say as this is so common now.

Thoughts and Prayers!

Think you already said it, but yeah just another day in the USA.

https://i.imgur.com/HTScJTB.gif

Senseless :nope:

This one hurts the vets ... the shooter was a ex-Marine 28 years old. The VA needs to do a better job of caring for their patients. :yep:

The gunman actually posted to social media during the shooting; he took a break and posted to Instagram:

'Fact is I had no reason to do it': Thousand Oaks gunman posted to Instagram during massacre --

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...re/1958013002/










<O>

Yeah, true.

Bad enough he kills for no reason. Has to taunt us, too.

Honestly wish we could all agree ( all people in the population, not just us in this forum) to stop treating these shootings as entertainment and strip these killers of their notoriety by having the media print bare facts, excluding his name, and move on.

I read that he had mental issues and was checked out by professionals; California has laws that could have stripped him of his firearms but apparently he was deemed not a risk. Alas.

It is a real world catch 22.

I read earlier yesterday that in one earlier shooting somebody escaped the killing - only to later get into another shooting incident and then got killed there.

These events are no singular events anymore, as was argued a long time ago. These are routine by now, part of life.

These are SYMPTOMS.

Man! only the bad guy was armed?

I carry in my house for God's sake

Yeah, that would have totally worked in a crowded bar if some 50 people or so all had drawn guns after the first shots and returned fire on someone with a gun in his hand....:doh:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti gun in general but I highly doubt it would have made a positive change here.

That anti-argument you could make for any situation with more than just 3 or 4 people then. In this bar now, more likely it is that people in the closest vicinity of the shooter would have taken him out already before the situation could escalate this far. At least when they got some basic training and must do refresher courses or any kind of regular practice skill, at least as long as the attacker did not sit in a bunker.

The "good guy" argument fails the moment you apply some common sense to it.


How does the "good guy" identify the "bad guy" in a crowded place and if there happens to be more than one "good guy"? How does the police identify the "good guy" from the "bad guy"?


Even police officers have spoken against these "good guys" since they only add to confusion and when the police go in, they need to know that the guy waving the gun around is the bad guy.

Yeah, agreed. I'm a believer in the good guy theory but in many cases it doesn't work. In this case it would have been utter chaos if multiple people had started drawing and shooting. I guarantee some would have been shooting each other, after all, the lunatic wasn't wearing a sign that said, "Shoot me, I'm the one".

Well that's a mighty big "if". Can you name some instances where that has happened?, because I can name plenty of them where the lack of an armed good guy has driven up the body count significantly in these events. I can also name instances where an armed good guy has stopped an attack and managed to do it without hitting innocent bystanders, maybe not even firing a shot.

I believe the "Wild West" argument is fatally flawed because it relies upon what it's proponents think MIGHT possibly happen while there is absolutely no question that gun free zones make it far easier for killers to commit their atrocities.

It seems that some folks believe if the government can't protect us and we can't run away from a mass shooting then we deserve to die like sheep because God forbid we should exercise any old fashioned self reliance or responsibility. To them such libertarian attributes, ones that founded our country and allowed it to grow from a weak collection of competing colonies perched upon the edge of an untamed continent into the mightiest nation the world has ever seen, these have become outdated in this age of the all pervasive nanny state.

Imagine!
 

There might be 50 dead and 60 wounded, most from those firing back at the bad guy. Some would not have been able to tell who is the bad guy. Some would not have been sure if there was only one bad guy. Most shots would miss intended targets. Imagine being a cop and having to go into such a hell-hole, not knowing also which guys with guns were good or bad !

Gun control arguments against are not all about the rights but mostly I think about money. The gun sellers and the ammo sellers would lose a lot. Big lobbies all the time, paying politicians to do nothing.

Class action lawsuits worked against the tobacco companies. How about suing the gun and ammo makers? Include the politicians? Funds going to the victims.

I was sarcastic.;)
I meant that it would turn into a chaotic situation where no one still knows who fired the first shots and people would probably open fire on anyone with a gun.

i guess my first hat tip would be he is the person shooting everyone

In a loud, crowded bar/dance floor, you think everyone will know who is the criminal shooter and who are the armed citizens? Mass confusion.

But you're assuming that everyone who has a gun on them will instantly draw it and begin spraying bullets around randomly the second the shooting starts, as if we are only a step down on the crazy scale from the killer himself.

That's what the whole gun control argument boils down to, that Americans cannot be trusted with freedom so they must be made as harmless as possible. If that means that we make it easier for mass murderers and other violent criminals to commit their crimes then so be it. All hail the power of the state.