Vegas Free-for-All - JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings

alanleroyII

Oct 5, 2015
6:23am

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2

Quote
Originally posted by: hoops2
Since it is now obvious that the shooter was anti-Christian, it is unlikely that he really was a conservative Republican as conservative Republicans are tolerant of religions.

Your honor, alanleroyII, I move to admit this and mark it as exhibit A.

Duly noted. However he didn't say: "It is now obvious that the shooter was a liberal as they are more likely to be anti-Christian than conservatives". I'm sure others would make that kind of leap though....The ones who generalize and stereotype people based on their politics.

Of course those others could make the argument that "Liberals hate guns and the right to bear them....so he couldn't be a liberal and own all those weapons."

But getting back to the basic point, this has everything to do with chemical imbalances, insane delusions, and a violent society and nothing to do with political affiliation.

IMHO, It's easier and cheaper to solve gun violence by criminals than these crazy random massacres...and that's where the resources should go. To put it in perspective, in my medium sized city of Fresno there have been 247 gang related shootings already this year. That includes 30 shootings in 28 days and 4 murders in 24 hours. We've had 0 mass murders by nut cases. The mass killings are sensational and tragic and a small fraction of our gun violence.

rdwoodpecker

Oct 5, 2015
7:37am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I agree sometimes you just have to call a nut a nut. I wasn't trying to make the point that his political affiliation caused his mental illness. What I noticed was that were some people in this thread that tried to deny his stated political affiliation and actually claim he was a democrat that looked forward to voting for Hillary Clinton. If you don't think his political affiliation had anything to do with his mental illness (like I do in this case), acknowledge it and move on. When someone writes paragraphs denying a political affiliation he expressed in writing, they are the one that fears his political affiliation had something to do with his mental illness.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Years of posts not a couple of off the cuff remarks. Lots of denial in this thread. rdwoodpecker and alanleroyII seem to think that since we don't have the shooter's voting registration it doesn't count that he self-identified as a conservative republican. Personally, what stands out to me is the guy was nuttier than a squirrel turd, and should have been locked up and medicated before this happened. You republicans want guns everywhere. Fine, then concede we are going to have to spend a lot of money on mental health. Otherwise any professed sympathy for the victims is insincere and cowardly.
I actually think his political affiliation has nothing to do with his mental illness and your attempt to smear Republicans by associating them with this is stupid and reprehensible. But of course, I'm no Republican. Perhaps you can show us some stats about overall murders by political affiliation. Oh...and not by actual registered party...because many are not likely registered..Let's just go by what you think they think.

Not long ago, there was some Republican propaganda floating around that claimed most Mass Murderers were Democrats. Of course the Democrats called that stupid and reprehensible...and they were right.

Perhaps in your blatant attempt at politicizing this event by blaming it on Republicans you could just show how Democrat controlled states have lower mass murder rates because of their stricter gun control and better mental health systems.

Oregon. Colorado, South Carolina, California, Washington DC, Connecticut. Mostly Democrat, eh?. If I really wanted to be insincere and cowardly I'd just go ahead and falsely blame the Democrats because obviously their states are failing when it comes to mass murder...but that's not how I roll.

________________________________________________________________________________

No No No, tommy10pins posted that he was a conservative republican, like that was the problem (as I read it anyway)
I simply posted that he was actually registered as an independent. His father also claimed that he was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton for President. The reason i brought that forward is that I can't think of any "conservative republican" that would vote for Hillary!
You are right, his political party matters not but Tommy10Pins posted meaning that it did! I just corrected as to what I have read on this guy.

Don

Oct 6, 2015
10:34am

Block User

Chicago, Illinois is as about as highly regulated with respect to guns as anywhere in the United States.

A resident requires an Illinois State Firearms Identification Card and a Chicago Firearm Permit to purchase/own a firearm.
The firearms themselves are also heavily regulated, e.g. features such as a telescoping stock result in classifications as an "assault weapon" and assault weapons are banned. Magazine capacities are limited. Some spring-powered pellet guns are classified as "firearms".

Nonetheless, from January 1 through 5 October this year 2350 persons have been shot in Chicago. On average less than 3 hours pass between someone being shot in the Greater Chicago area all year long. The 2015 total is likely to exceed the 2014 record of 2587 persons shot.

Ref: Chicago Tribune

They must be doing something wrong.

pjstroh

Oct 6, 2015
1:23pm

Block User

Australia passed sweeping gun legislation in the wake of a mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had one since...knock on wood.

they must be doing something very right.

Australia's gun legislation

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."

alanleroyII

Oct 6, 2015
3:05pm

Block User

Of course gun ownership was never a constitutional right in Australia. Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn't reap public support in the 90 percent range here.

Campion

Oct 6, 2015
4:55pm

Block User

Looks like the mother of the Oregon shooter was a clone of the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter. Encouraged her son to own guns and went shooting with him, while acknowledging that he had Aspergers and was emotionally troubled. The gun ownership issue aside, these parents are fucking idiots.

Boilerman

Oct 6, 2015
9:32pm

Block User

If one wants to assure that there will be no more mass shootings, doesn't it make more sense to pass a law against "mass shootings"?

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Australia passed sweeping gun legislation in the wake of a mass shooting in 1996. They haven't had one since...knock on wood.

they must be doing something very right.

Australia's gun legislation

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."

pjstroh

Oct 6, 2015
9:44pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Of course gun ownership was never a constitutional right in Australia. Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn't reap public support in the 90 percent range here.

Australia did not repeal gun ownwership... They just dont have a government that is bribed by the gun industry.

Our Cngress specifically bans federal agencies from researching gun violence and its root causes. Thats what the NRA got for its money ... As well as the ability to by guns at a private sale with no background checks...

alanleroyII

Oct 6, 2015
10:20pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Of course gun ownership was never a constitutional right in Australia. Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn't reap public support in the 90 percent range here.

"Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. "
John Howard--Former Conservative Prime Minister...who implemented Australian Gun Control.

I see nothing wrong with researching gun violence. I see nothing wrong with background checks for private sales. I'm pretty sure you'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment to implement Australian like gun confiscation or UK like handgun bans here. It might happen in 20 years if there's enough of these incidents.....or if a new crop of Supremes have a different idea of what the founders meant by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary".

If you really want to make a quick difference in gun violence in the US, what's wrong with locking up and throwing away the key for any felon caught in possession of a gun? When gangsters see their homies going away for life, they'll get the memo....If we were to mostly eliminate gun violence by criminals, the law abiding will have less motivation to weaponize suburbia. So why don't we enforce harsher penalties for felons in possession of guns? Because some are only serious about this when they can blame the guns and not the criminals.

hoops2

Oct 6, 2015
10:38pm

Block User

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

«‹7 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now

JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings - "Stuff Happens"