Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Palindrome wrote:
I think you are using a complete different definition of rant to the rest of the world.

Its trivially easy to provoke all kinds of wild overractions in threads involving the control of firearms.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rant
" to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable"

Over-reactions? I'm not seeing any "Out of my cold dead hands" declarations. Unless of course you think that people responding to your glib comment with facts are "wild overractions"

PhantomViper wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Break out of that mindset and culture and incidents like this are a lot less likely to occur.

Just like breaking out of the mindset that the free availability of firearms is a god given right would also mean that incidents like this would happen a lot less often?

10:1 odds the firearms used were illegally obtained, making all said arguments of this sort useless.

Unless the used firearms were stolen directly from a manufacturer, that argument makes no sense.

More legal guns in circulation means that there are also more illegal guns in circulation.

No. It is generally illegal to have a firearm in Chicago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:
What rant would that be?

The anti gun rant.
Note Texas laws make guns flow like water, but mass shootings like that doesn't occur here. We do strangely seem to have mass gang stabbings in schools though...

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/12/the-list-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-texas-history/

 Palindrome wrote:
I think you are using a complete different definition of rant to the rest of the world.

Its trivially easy to provoke all kinds of wild overractions in threads involving the control of firearms.

Its trivially easy to promote all kinds of wild, fact deficient, Morgan-esque beliefs in threads involving the control of firearms when you blatantly ignore the facts.

 cincydooley wrote:
Except, you know, that statistics support the notion that areas with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime. Take away the means of protection from law abiding citizens and only the criminals have the guns.

Australia and Canada both have vastly stricter gun laws than the USA.

I wasn't aware we also had more gun crime too.

Wait...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I deliberately made my daughter very small at birth to reduce her target profile. I have allowed her to get bigger gradually as her capability to use tactics has increased.

Some excellent foresight you had there.

 Easy E wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Who the feth has their 3 year old out at the basketball court at 10:15 PM?

Classic Dakka. Blame the Victim!

I know when my daughter was before school age, I worked Mid-shifts and my wife was self-employed and worked odd hours too. My daughter had no reason to wake up early, so she tended to stay up rather late, and sleep in the next day. Just like my wife and I did. There were many times we were out as a family around 10:15 PM.

You hang out with your kid with gang members at gang parties late at night? If not, you are missing my point. Of course, you are doing so intentionally.

Obviously it isn't the 3 year old Tay Man's fault his mommy was a dumb ass that hung out with the gang late at night. He was a victim. His mommy on the other hand chose to hang with that crew, a crew that had members involved in other shootings (Tay Man's uncle was capped not too long before for example:http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/09/deonta-howard-3-year-old-shot-in-chicago-5-fast-facts-you-need-to-know/ )

Live the thug life, bring your kid to thug outings, don't be surprised when it doesn't end well.

 Forar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Except, you know, that statistics support the notion that areas with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime. Take away the means of protection from law abiding citizens and only the criminals have the guns.

Australia and Canada both have vastly stricter gun laws than the USA.

I wasn't aware we also had more gun crime too.

Wait...

Expansion: I was talking specifically about the United States. I'm assuming, as the intelligent indivual I know you to be (sarcasm not intened here), that you know that and that you're being delibrately obtuse and/or antagonistic

And then, in regards to Australia...there's this:

http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

 cincydooley wrote:
Expansion: I was talking specifically about the United States. I'm assuming, as the intelligent indivual I know you to be (sarcasm not intened here), that you know that and that you're being delibrately obtuse and/or antagonistic

I didn't know that, actually. You presented it as an absolute and vaguely with "areas". If you'd said "states" I don't think I would've even said anything.

 CptJake wrote:
You hang out with your kid with gang members at gang parties late at night? If not, you are missing my point. Of course, you are doing so intentionally.

Obviously it isn't the 3 year old Tay Man's fault his mommy was a dumb ass that hung out with the gang late at night. He was a victim. His mommy on the other hand chose to hang with that crew, a crew that had members involved in other shootings (Tay Man's uncle was capped not too long before for example:http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/09/deonta-howard-3-year-old-shot-in-chicago-5-fast-facts-you-need-to-know/ )

Live the thug life, bring your kid to thug outings, don't be surprised when it doesn't end well.

It's fascinating to me how you were able to create this detailed narrative about the background of this event with a 2 sentence twitter post as your only brick, and the rest, pure supposition, lovingly troweled on.

Isn't that the whole point of Dakka OT?

My cousin was hanging out at a football game with his 3year old stepson last Saturday... it was like 9pm by the time we left.

 Forar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Expansion: I was talking specifically about the United States. I'm assuming, as the intelligent indivual I know you to be (sarcasm not intened here), that you know that and that you're being delibrately obtuse and/or antagonistic

I didn't know that, actually. You presented it as an absolute and vaguely with "areas". If you'd said "states" I don't think I would've even said anything.

Well my bad then I figured you were just giving me gak.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Isn't that the whole point of Dakka OT?

Yes it is.

 Alfndrate wrote:
My cousin was hanging out at a football game with his 3year old stepson last Saturday... it was like 9pm by the time we left.

If someone had shot him, right in that "THUG LIFE" tattoo he undoubtedly has on his belly, it would have been his own fault.

 Ouze wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
My cousin was hanging out at a football game with his 3year old stepson last Saturday... it was like 9pm by the time we left.

If someone had shot him, right in that "THUG LIFE" tattoo he undoubtedly has on his belly, it would have been his own fault.

I mean in this case, Tay Man literally didn't choose the thug life, the thug life chose him...

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You hang out with your kid with gang members at gang parties late at night? If not, you are missing my point. Of course, you are doing so intentionally.

Obviously it isn't the 3 year old Tay Man's fault his mommy was a dumb ass that hung out with the gang late at night. He was a victim. His mommy on the other hand chose to hang with that crew, a crew that had members involved in other shootings (Tay Man's uncle was capped not too long before for example:http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/09/deonta-howard-3-year-old-shot-in-chicago-5-fast-facts-you-need-to-know/ )

Live the thug life, bring your kid to thug outings, don't be surprised when it doesn't end well.

It's fascinating to me how you were able to create this detailed narrative about the background of this event with a 2 sentence twitter post as your only brick, and the rest, pure supposition, lovingly troweled on.

It isn't supposition. Did you look at the link and read the articles it linked to? There was a Chicago Tribune article I read about it earlier this morning, this particular incident was clearly gang related according to the cops and the witnesses.

Here is the CBS version: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57603810/chicago-park-shooting-leaves-13-wounded-including-3-year-old-boy/

The boy's grandmother told WBBM-TV that Deonta's uncle was one of eight people murdered in the city over Labor Day weekend.

Clearly a gang related shooting. Zero doubts about that. Clearly the targeted group was targeted because of gang ties. Again, no reasonable person would argue against that. Clearly bringing a 3 year old to a gang gathering is not indicative of good parenting.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/12/the-list-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-texas-history/

1. Oct. 16, 1991: A deadly shooting rampage took place in Killeen, Texas, as George Hennard opened fire at a Luby’s Cafeteria, killing 23 people before taking his own life. 20 others were wounded in the attack.
***Yes. And this is what started CHLs in Texas. Several people had firearms in their vehicles but could not get to them.
2 .Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.
***Yes and civilians with deer rifles kept his head down until police could get up there and take him out.
3. Nov. 5, 2009: Thirteen soldiers and civilians were killed and more than two dozen wounded when a gunman walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and opened fire. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.
****You mean THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN A GUN FREE ZONE?
4. Sept. 15, 1999: Seven people were killed and seven others injured when a gunman opened fire inside a crowded chapel at Fort Worth’s Wedgewood Baptist Church. Some worshipers believed that Larry Gene Ashbrook was pulling a prank and continued singing after the shooting began. The murderer killed himself.
***Yep. As head usher at our church I’m extremely aware of that. many churches are now extremely aware of that. But thats just one attack on a church.
You also forgot about:
5. In 1836 5,000 Mexican gangs surrounded 200 people holed up in a church in San Antonio. Shouting “LA RAZA!” 185 civilians were killed. Police did not respond for at least an hour.
Now look at the 500+ murders in Chicago this year.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Except, you know, that statistics support the notion that areas with the strictest gun laws have the most gun crime. Take away the means of protection from law abiding citizens and only the criminals have the guns.

Australia and Canada both have vastly stricter gun laws than the USA.

I wasn't aware we also had more gun crime too.

Wait...

They do have more violent crime however.

 Frazzled wrote:


2 .Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.

***Yes and civilians with deer rifles kept his head down until police could get up there and take him out.

I'd really like to highlight this. This part is a big deal. If those dudes with the rifles aren't taking shots back, Whitman kills a lot more people. A lot.

Additionally, the same sort of incident happened at that mall in Oregon (?) where a kid opened fire, was drawn on with no shots fired, and ran away and put himself out of commission. Everyone on Dakka seems to hate victim blaming except in the instance of firearms. Good, law abiding citizens SHOULD be able to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from criminals.

Frazzled wrote:Note Texas laws make guns flow like water, but mass shootings like that doesn't occur here.

Kilkrazy wrote:http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/12/the-list-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-texas-history/

Frazzled wrote: (inaudible)

Hey, could you repeat what you said? I couldn't hear you over the screeching noise the goalposts made when you moved them.

 Alfndrate wrote:
My cousin was hanging out at a football game with his 3year old stepson last Saturday... it was like 9pm by the time we left.

There is a difference in the time.
There is a difference in the location.

regardless people should not worry about getting shot at 10.00PM at night.
Unless they are loud in which case they fully and completely deserve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Note Texas laws make guns flow like water, but mass shootings like that doesn't occur here.

Kilkrazy wrote:http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/12/the-list-the-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-texas-history/

Frazzled wrote: (inaudible)

Hey, could you repeat what you said? I couldn't hear you over the screeching noise the goalposts made when you moved them.

maybe scrolling up is difficult for you this morning. Ouze what did you do last night?

 Frazzled wrote:
regardless people should not worry about getting shot at 10.00PM at night.
Unless they are loud in which case they fully and completely deserve it.

On this, there is consensus. I have to imagine that guy repeatedly revving his motorcycle every night at 2 in the morning at the bar across the street would be a lot swifter about just getting on and driving off if I could legally buck a few shots at him after the third rev.

Also agreed.
I used to live behind a bar when I was in LA. That thought crossed my mind a million times.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


2 .Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.

***Yes and civilians with deer rifles kept his head down until police could get up there and take him out.

I'd really like to highlight this. This part is a big deal. If those dudes with the rifles aren't taking shots back, Whitman kills a lot more people. A lot.

Additionally, the same sort of incident happened at that mall in Oregon (?) where a kid opened fire, was drawn on with no shots fired, and ran away and put himself out of commission. Everyone on Dakka seems to hate victim blaming except in the instance of firearms. Good, law abiding citizens SHOULD be able to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from criminals.

Probably because not every incident where there is a "mass shooting" will it turn out like Oregon or the University of Texas shootings when civilians start shooting back.

The other part is that in most of these cases the individual doing the killing falls under the "good, law abiding citizen" category not the "hardened criminal" category.

Edit note:
Of course I'm not saying that the shooter is not a criminal when they execute the shootings, but far too often they are individuals who legally obtain firearms and have not had major run-ins with the law.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I know it's slightly off topic, but it came up in this article. I'm not in the rabid pro- or anti-Obama camps, but I find it really irritating when people refer to Illinois as his homestate. It isn't. He was neither born nor raised here. He took a home in Chicago for the briefest period of times in order to capitalize on an almost guaranteed group of Democrat voters. I'm not throwing rocks. It's a viable, and even cunning, tactic for political election. But he isn't from Illinois. He has zero real investment in this state, and has never represented the interests of the state more than was required to meet the bare-bones demands of his Senate constituency.

It's not a political thing, it's just an accuracy thing. He's not really an Illinoisan. I don't know why that bugs me so much, it just does.

there was an interesting article that talked about how the last few elections have really featured candidates from nowhere.

Obama was born in Hawaii, went to college in LA and chicago, went to Boston for law school, then returned to Chicago until elected president. As much he is "from" anywhere, it's probably chicago as that's where he did t he most work as an adult.

Romney has bopped around, being born in Michigan but serving as governer of Massachusetts.

McCain famously listed "Hanoi" as his longest place of residence prior to moving to arizona, and was born in the panama canal zone.

George W. Bush was born in connecticut but moved to Texas. Gore was nearly elected president without winning the state that sent him to the senate!

Anyway, the thrust of that article pointed out that all of these men were of the privileged, elite. Either by old money, political dynasties, or raw talent.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


2 .Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.

***Yes and civilians with deer rifles kept his head down until police could get up there and take him out.

I'd really like to highlight this. This part is a big deal. If those dudes with the rifles aren't taking shots back, Whitman kills a lot more people. A lot.

Additionally, the same sort of incident happened at that mall in Oregon (?) where a kid opened fire, was drawn on with no shots fired, and ran away and put himself out of commission. Everyone on Dakka seems to hate victim blaming except in the instance of firearms. Good, law abiding citizens SHOULD be able to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from criminals.

Probably because not every incident where there is a "mass shooting" will it turn out like Oregon or the University of Texas shootings when civilians start shooting back.

Largely in part because the VAST MAJORITY of said shootings occur in "gun free" zones. Where citizens are not legally allowed to carry the fire arms that they could use to protect themselves/others such as the Oregon/University of Texas situations.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


2 .Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31.

***Yes and civilians with deer rifles kept his head down until police could get up there and take him out.

I'd really like to highlight this. This part is a big deal. If those dudes with the rifles aren't taking shots back, Whitman kills a lot more people. A lot.

Additionally, the same sort of incident happened at that mall in Oregon (?) where a kid opened fire, was drawn on with no shots fired, and ran away and put himself out of commission. Everyone on Dakka seems to hate victim blaming except in the instance of firearms. Good, law abiding citizens SHOULD be able to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from criminals.

Probably because not every incident where there is a "mass shooting" will it turn out like Oregon or the University of Texas shootings when civilians start shooting back.

Largely in part because the VAST MAJORITY of said shootings occur in "gun free" zones. Where citizens are not legally allowed to carry the fire arms that they could use to protect themselves/others such as the Oregon/University of Texas situations.

Well no gak they occur in "gun free" zones.

The mentality of these individuals is not that of people looking for some kind of "combat" where people are firing back. They're looking to kill people and be unopposed while doing so.

Nice that you cut out the second part of my post though. Just keep on pretending like most of these shooters are not using legally acquired firearms.

The second part of your post didn't really have anything to do with my response, hence the cutting it out.

Your pointing out that people won't always be able to "respond", I'm just agreeing. So do you agree that the gun free zones just help to create victims then?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Expansion: I was talking specifically about the United States. I'm assuming, as the intelligent indivual I know you to be (sarcasm not intened here), that you know that and that you're being delibrately obtuse and/or antagonistic

I didn't know that, actually. You presented it as an absolute and vaguely with "areas". If you'd said "states" I don't think I would've even said anything.

Well my bad then I figured you were just giving me gak.

Heh.

And as a similarly intelligent individual, I'm sure you're aware it's a lot more complicated than "more gun laws = more gun crime".

There are a ton of primary, secondary and tertiary factors relating to crime rates in a given neighborhood, let alone city, let alone state. Poverty rates, education levels, job availability, social service availability, cost of living, age, existing crime rates, gang activity, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It makes for an easy sound bite to throw back and forth on news channels, but much like the need to address mental illness (as it has come up several times in recent mass shootings) as a society (and I'm including Canada here), I don't see how much is going to get done if people keep defensively reducing it to an OMG CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SHOWDOWN THROWDOWN YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

Like, yes, the right to bear arms is important. So is restricting the availability of weapons to those who might misuse them, and similarly the solutions are likely to be a lot more complex than simply "guns for everyone!" or "no guns for anyone!"

But people (especially in the media) struggle with presenting longer/complicated issues without trying to reduce them down to pithy soundbites, so my expectation on the status quo changing is pretty minimal.

The question is why Australia, the UK, Japan, etc. are not overrun with mass shooters given how easy it is to get illegal weapons here and the lack of armed law-abiding citizens to stop such incidents from occurring.

There have been three mass shootings in the UK in the past 30 years. All with technically legally held weapons.