Mass Shooting thread

[Brightstar6]

In the mean yime back at the bar s ranch..Police shoot black man 60 times in Akron..60 TIMES!! You talk about over kill..And now we have a national holiday and a lot of really irritated blacks that may want to start Christmas shopping early...

[Jimbuna]

Sometimes even the strictest firearm controls aren't enough.

[Jimbuna]

[mapuc]

What's more sad is the disinformation and conspiracy who has arise after this terrible shooting.

The official and which I also support-The perpetrator was an ethnic 22 years old Danish man-Who is suffering from some psychological issues.

It was not Terror.
(Here I disagree-If a person start shooting into a crowd-Then it's in my terminology terror)

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Christ! Not another one!

Five people have been shot dead at a 4 July Independence Day parade near the US city of Chicago, city officials say.

The event in Highland Park, a Chicago suburb, was suddenly halted about 10 minutes after it began, when several shots were heard.

City authorities described the incident as "active" and said 16 people had also been hospitalised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62042636

[Buddahaid]

Wonderful. I wonder what this motive is about?

[em2nought]

I wonder how much a gallon of gas will cost if we don't own firearms anymore?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Christ! Not another one!

...no worries... the NRA & the GOP are digging out the "Thoughts & Prayers" rubber stamps as we all post...


...it is interesting how extremely silent the GOP has become after the latest spate of mass shootings in the US; could it be they are realizing that fewer and fewer voters are buying the NRA/GOP company/party line regarding their defense of assault weapons and their seeming ignorance of basic common sense?...


...funny how midterm elections can mute political BS...






<O>

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Sometimes even the strictest firearm controls aren't enough.

Shinzo Abe approves this post.

[Sean C]

I was talking to a left-wing friend of mine recently when he said, "No-one needs an assault weapon like an AR-15. You don't even need a round like 7.62 for hunting ... it's made for killing people. The most you might need for self defense is a .22 or something like that. And AR-15s are semi-automatic!"


[sigh]

I began to explain to him that:

1. The majority of AR-15s are chambered in 5.56, not 7.62.
2. 5.56 mm is literally .22 inches. (basically the same as .223)
3. Granted, the cartridge of the 5.56 is much larger than e.g., a .22 LR and the bullet has slightly more mass, so it does have a higher muzzle velocity and more energy (~10x more).
4. A .22, on the other hand, will almost certainly not stop a psychotic/drugged individual: the type of person likely to commit violent crimes.
5. 7.62 is about .3 in., similar to .30-06, .308, .30-30, etc. and obviously bigger than 5.56.
6. All of these 30 caliber rounds are widely used by hunters and have roughly twice the energy of a 5.56 fired from an AR-15.
7. The .30-06 round was originally developed for the U.S. Army.
8. Many hunters use semi-automatic rifles.
9. Semi-automatic ≠ [fully] automatic.
10. There is so little agreement on what an "assault weapon" even is that the only reliable traits seem to be "possibly used by a military" and "scary". The only common one that makes any sense is a high-capacity magazine.
11. All of this is moot because: Second Amendment.

... but I didn't even get to #3 before he interrupted with some more nonsense. At that point, I said that it was probably best if we didn't talk about guns.

It has been my experience that the people who are the most vocal about banning guns of a particular sort are also the people who know little to nothing about them. Or worse: they "know" the wrong things - and they want to tell you about it. Or worst of all: they know the wrong things, want to tell you about it, and are in a position to make laws.

And you can say whatever you want about the Second Amendment - it's right there in black and brown for anyone to read. It's not even complicated. It's literally one sentence. But just in case you need the "plain English" version, here you go: 'Americans will always have the right to own guns because they need to band together and train to protect their freedom.'

That's it. It really is that simple. Why people feel the need to debate its meaning is beyond me. So: if you want to legally ban any gun, then you must amend the Constitution.

To be clear: I am not saying that we shouldn't do everything in our power to keep atrocities like mass shootings from happening. But do you really think that banning this gun, that gun or even all guns will have any effect? We actually did amend the Constitution a while back to totally ban something nationwide. Remember how everybody went along with it, how it didn't help create an organized crime empire and how we didn't turn around and amend the Constitution again to reverse the ban? Yeah, me neither.

[d@rk51d3]

Originally Posted by Sean C

I was talking to a left-wing friend of mine recently when he said, "No-one needs an assault weapon like an AR-15. You don't even need a round like 7.62 for hunting ... it's made for killing people. The most you might need for self defense is a .22 or something like that. And AR-15s are semi-automatic!"


[sigh]

I began to explain to him that:

1. The majority of AR-15s are chambered in 5.56, not 7.62.
2. 5.56 mm is literally .22 inches. (basically the same as .223)
3. Granted, the cartridge of the 5.56 is much larger than e.g., a .22 LR and the bullet has slightly more mass, so it does have a higher muzzle velocity and more energy (~10x more).
4. A .22, on the other hand, will almost certainly not stop a psychotic/drugged individual: the type of person likely to commit violent crimes.
5. 7.62 is about .3 in., similar to .30-06, .308, .30-30, etc. and obviously bigger than 5.56.
6. All of these 30 caliber rounds are widely used by hunters and have roughly twice the energy of a 5.56 fired from an AR-15.
7. The .30-06 round was originally developed for the U.S. Army.
8. Many hunters use semi-automatic rifles.
9. Semi-automatic ≠ [fully] automatic.
10. There is so little agreement on what an "assault weapon" even is that the only reliable traits seem to be "possibly used by a military" and "scary". The only common one that makes any sense is a high-capacity magazine.
11. All of this is moot because: Second Amendment.

... but I didn't even get to #3 before he interrupted with some more nonsense. At that point, I said that it was probably best if we didn't talk about guns.

It has been my experience that the people who are the most vocal about banning guns of a particular sort are also the people who know little to nothing about them. Or worse: they "know" the wrong things - and they want to tell you about it. Or worst of all: they know the wrong things, want to tell you about it, and are in a position to make laws.

And you can say whatever you want about the Second Amendment - it's right there in black and brown for anyone to read. It's not even complicated. It's literally one sentence. But just in case you need the "plain English" version, here you go: 'Americans will always have the right to own guns because they need to band together and train to protect their freedom.'

That's it. It really is that simple. Why people feel the need to debate its meaning is beyond me. So: if you want to legally ban any gun, then you must amend the Constitution.

To be clear: I am not saying that we shouldn't do everything in our power to keep atrocities like mass shootings from happening. But do you really think that banning this gun, that gun or even all guns will have any effect? We actually did amend the Constitution a while back to totally ban something nationwide. Remember how everybody went along with it, how it didn't help create an organized crime empire and how we didn't turn around and amend the Constitution again to reverse the ban? Yeah, me neither.

Had a discussion with another that couldn't comprehend the fact that most handguns are semi-automatic too. Didn't match the media cool-aid she'd been gulping down, about scary black, military looking rifles that could take down an entire army.

[Rockstar]

Denier alert!

https://www.cchrint.org/2021/02/09/c...ltering-drugs/

https://www.cchrint.org/pdfs/violence-report.pdf

The irritability and impulsivity [from antidepressants] can make people suicidal or homicidal.” - Joseph Glenmullen Harvard Medical School Psychiatrist

“The link between antidepressants and violence, including suicide and homicide, is well established.” - Patrick D. Hahn Affiliate Professor of Biology, Loyola University Maryland

“Violence and other potentially criminal behavior caused by prescription drugs are medicine’s best kept secret.” - Professor David Healy Leading Psychopharmacology Expert and Professor of Psychiatry in Wales

No History of Violence Until Prescribed Zoloft

On May 25, 2001, Judge Barry O’Keefe blamed the antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline) for turning David Hawkins, a peaceful, law-abiding man, into a violent killer. Hawkins had no history of violence and had remained gainfully employed throughout his life. Judge O’Keefe said that had Hawkins not taken the antidepressant, “it is overwhelmingly probable” that his wife, “would not have been killed....” It was “inconsistent with the loving, caring relationship which existed between him and his wife and with their happy marriage of 50 years.” Hawkins was sentenced to three years in prison.

Of nearly 410 psychiatric drug warnings, 27 warned of violence, aggression, hostility, mania, psychosis or homicidal ideation; 49 warned of self-harm or suicide/suicidal ideation; 17 were for addiction or withdrawal effects; and 27 were linked to Serotonin Syndrome found in antidepressant use and marked by symptoms that include agitation, restlessness and confusion.

According to above sources there are 400,000,000 psychiatric drug prescriptions. Some of the most well known shootings involved these drugs.

[mapuc]

One of my American friend had posted this on her wall

Markus

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by mapuc

One of my American friend had posted this on her wall

Markus

LOL, She should really look at some of the gun control laws already on the books.

[August]

Originally Posted by MaDef

LOL, She should really look at some of the gun control laws already on the books.

She should look up our abortion laws too. "Every" woman in America, in fact "most" women in America don't have to do any of that. They can get an abortion right up until the brat is getting ready to pop out on it's own.

Truth be told it's much less hassle to murder an unborn baby than it is to buy a gun in most of the same places.