Mass Shootings Maine

[The Real timschochet 6,779]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

We already have background checks.  And, as one of your lib buddies posted up above, most incidents occur with legally obtained firearms.  I don't see any reason to change the current system regarding that.   Because what you want is a national database of all guns and gun owners.  And that's not somewhere I'm willing to go.  We know how the government abuses any information you give them.  Only an idiot would consent to that level of draconian oversight.

The voter ID issue is relevant because it shows that for the same overall issue your stance changes depending on whether the issue is one of your pet issues or not. 

As I've always said, I form my opinions based on data, evidence, and logic.  You don't. 

Logically: gun issues involve public safety. Voting issues do not. There’s never been enough voter fraud (of the sort that would change the outcome of an election) that would require voter ID. The reasons that conservatives favor voter IDs is to reduce minority voting. Which is why I’m opposed. 

[GobbleDog 997]

7 pages trying to figure out how to keep guns AND reduce gun violence rates. Better background checks, national gun registrations, ban certain types of guns, lock up mentally ill, cops on every street corner, ban violent movies and music, etc... anything to keep our precious guns.

Gun rights & low gun violence rates cannot coexist. Either keep the guns and learn to stomach unconscionable carnage (which Americans have), or give up the guns. One of the other. Any other discussion is pointless. 

[Ultra Max Power 214]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

This guy said he was hearing voices and expressed a desire to shoot up a national guard base or something like that.  We don't know the details of why he was released.  What I do know is we have been pulling back our support for mental institutions for at least 30 years.  Would he have been released in, say, 1980?  I don't know.  But maybe we need to do more to identify, detain, and diagnose mentally ill people. 

Totally agree with you here.  This is a difficult situation to navigate and we should be doing a lot better on this front.  Again I just see it as another area that we're all too divided on to make any real progress.  Mental health in America is falling fast and we're in standby mode.  

[The Real timschochet 6,779]

Just now, GobbleDog said:

7 pages trying to figure out how to keep guns AND reduce gun violence rates. Better background checks, national gun registrations, ban certain types of guns, lock up mentally ill, cops on every street corner, ban violent movies and music, etc... anything to keep our precious guns.

Gun rights & low gun violence rates cannot coexist. Either keep the guns and learn to stomach unconscionable carnage (which Americans have), or give up the guns. One of the other. Any other discussion is pointless. 

I don’t think I agree with you but even if I did it’s too late. We can’t remove gun rights. Too many guns, too many people own them. Let’s be realistic it ain’t gonna happen. 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

How is this guy still at large?

[Ultra Max Power 214]

6 minutes ago, GobbleDog said:

7 pages trying to figure out how to keep guns AND reduce gun violence rates. Better background checks, national gun registrations, ban certain types of guns, lock up mentally ill, cops on every street corner, ban violent movies and music, etc... anything to keep our precious guns.

Gun rights & low gun violence rates cannot coexist. Either keep the guns and learn to stomach unconscionable carnage (which Americans have), or give up the guns. One of the other. Any other discussion is pointless. 

Gun homicide violence is a pretty isolated problem once you boil down the stats.  

[Cloaca du jour 2,150]

6 million hunters entering the woods next month.

I predict 0 mass shooting events.

Its not the guns.

[The Real timschochet 6,779]

In reading the responses to what I proposed (unsurprising but illuminating) what it really comes down to is your basic philosophy of government. If you view the government as malevolent, will all sorts of intent to impose an ever increasing tyranny or authoritarianism, then you’re never going to agree on any measure that could even theoretically remove your individual rights. On the other hand, if you view the government as sometimes bumbling but generally well meaning with a serious interest in preserving public safety without destroying freedom, then you’re going to be more willing to accept at least moderate proposals for change. It’s basically the same debate that took place over Covid. 

[The Real timschochet 6,779]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is this guy still at large?

Maine is largely rural, heavily wooded. Didn’t you ever read any Stephen King? Lots of places to hide. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is this guy still at large?

Not too hard to disappear for a while in these more remote states. But keeping it up — now that’s something very few can do

[Hardcore troubadour 15,451]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Yes, prayer is the answer here. 

 

“The sweetness sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” - Barrack Husain Obama 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,451]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is this guy still at large?

Didn’t you see Rambo? 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Didn’t you see Rambo? 

Yeah.  Also makes me think of the movie, Hunted, with Benicio del Toro.

[BuckSwope 654]

11 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

6 million hunters entering the woods next month.

I predict 0 mass shooting events.

Its not the guns.

A lot harder by definition when you are walking around largely by yourself.   

Now, if you replace guns with knives and bats in this guys hand, I'm pretty sure we aren't talking about 20+ deaths..   Guns are part of the equation.  

[Ultra Max Power 214]

12 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

In reading the responses to what I proposed (unsurprising but illuminating) what it really comes down to is your basic philosophy of government. If you view the government as malevolent, will all sorts of intent to impose an ever increasing tyranny or authoritarianism, then you’re never going to agree on any measure that could even theoretically remove your individual rights. On the other hand, if you view the government as sometimes bumbling but generally well meaning with a serious interest in preserving public safety without destroying freedom, then you’re going to be more willing to accept at least moderate proposals for change. It’s basically the same debate that took place over Covid. 

And we see how well they handled Covid.

[thegeneral 3,218]

16 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is this guy still at large?

That dude who escaped jail a few months back lasted a week or so in Pennsylvania. Maine is even more rural. 

[Hawkeye21 2,399]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

That dude who escaped jail a few months back lasted a week or so in Pennsylvania. Maine is even more rural. 

That's true.  Just surprised he was able to shoot that many people then still get away.  Pretty scary for those in the area.

[BrahmaBulls 767]

20 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is this guy still at large?

Because they haven't caught him yet

[thegeneral 3,218]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

That's true.  Just surprised he was able to shoot that many people then still get away.  Pretty scary for those in the area.

Seriously. We take many things for granted. There are nuts all over the place and things like this  could happen all the time. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,451]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Yes, prayer is the answer here. 

 

On the morning of Jan 6, 2021, Nancy Pelosi started her day praying with colleagues.  Maybe she should have been making sure the Capitol was secure after being repeatedly warned about possible unrest?  

[Ultra Max Power 214]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

That's true.  Just surprised he was able to shoot that many people then still get away.  Pretty scary for those in the area.

I also assume everyone in Maine is a white guy with a beard

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,451]

“Jill and I are keeping in our prayers all the people that have been hurt by this violence”- Joe Biden, Oct 7, 2023.  

[HellToupee 1,783]

52 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

I was thinking miserable pr!ck but this works for him too

Absolutely and actually a much better take

[GutterBoy 2,899]

28 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

6 million hunters entering the woods next month.

I predict 0 mass shooting events.

Its not the guns.

 

A mental Health facility filled with crazy people, zero mass shooting events.

It's not the crazy people.

[Cloaca du jour 2,150]

4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

 

A mental Health facility filled with crazy people, zero mass shooting events.

It's not the crazy people.

Wow ...such a dumb rebuttal.

I dont have the time or crayons to illustrate how dumb this is.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

5 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

Wow ...such a dumb rebuttal.

I dont have the time or crayons to illustrate how dumb this is.

Make a dumb comment, get a dumb rebuttal.  

[Patented Phil 1,469]

4 hours ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Whatever Happened to the manifesto?

Great question.  If that’s not a perfect example of the Left manipulating the criminal justice system that I don’t know what it is.

[GutterBoy 2,899]

6 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Great question.  If that’s not a perfect example of the Left manipulating the criminal justice system that I don’t know what it is.

huh?

The Hale "Manifesto" is not part of the criminal justice system, since Hale is thankfully dead, and your boogeyman "the left" has nothing to with it.

The families of the victims and the christian school doesn't want it released.

https://nypost.com/2023/07/28/audrey-hale-manifesto-suppression-could-be-unprecedented/

[Patented Phil 1,469]

1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

Christ almighty you can be an insufferable bastard

Well, yeah… his favorite things are trannies, Colin Kaepernick, and rats with wings.  You’d be insufferable too.

[Herbivore 1,134]

Part time Mainer here. Lewiston is not rural. It is about 1.5 hrs from Maine rural.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

4 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

Part time Mainer here. Lewiston is not rural. It is about 1.5 hrs from Maine rural.

Well he’s had 24hrs now

[Strike 5,556]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Logically: gun issues involve public safety. Voting issues do not. There’s never been enough voter fraud (of the sort that would change the outcome of an election) that would require voter ID. The reasons that conservatives favor voter IDs is to reduce minority voting. Which is why I’m opposed. 

If voting issues don't involve public safety, why were 1000's of people indicted over Jan 6th?  Because if those people had faith in our election system they never would have approached the capitol.   So yeah, voting issues do involve public safety.  As far as there never being enough voter fraud to make a difference, I'll make you a bet.  I can PROVE an election was stolen via voter fraud.  If I do, you leave this bored forever.  Ok?

As far as your assertion that the purpose of voter ID laws is to reduce minority voting, again, you're wrong.  The Dems tried to get the Georgia voter ID laws that were passed after the least presidential election overturned but couldn't.  The result?  More AA voters than ever and polling done by UGA showed voters overwhelmingly were happy with their voting experience.  In fact, AA's had a better experience than white people according to that poll.  So, as usual, data and evidence shows you're wrong.

[Strike 5,556]

1 hour ago, GobbleDog said:

 

Gun rights & low gun violence rates cannot coexist.

This is as wrong as a TimsCrotch post.  By any objective measure we have ALREADY have low gun violence rates.  In fact, our rate of violent crime is lower now than it was in the 60's and 70's despite there being a hell of a lot more guns.  The problem with people like you is that ANY violence becomes "too much" and only being willing t accept zero means everyone has to give up all their rights, and we will still never hit zero.

[edjr 6,598]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye21 said:

How is this guy still at large?

My father lives in Maine. Where he lives, there is one part time Sheriff and the fire dept is all volunteers.

If you have a heart attack, you're focked. 

When I visit I always drive as fast as I can without any fear of being pulled over. 

[5-Points 3,536]

6 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Not a single factor, no, so searching for "what it is" is futile.  So instead of searching for the "silver bullet" (bad euphemism here), maybe we make some changes to make things better.

And yes I'm talking about doing something about guns.  Yes, we've always had guns, but again, we look at the deadliest shootings over the past few years, what's the common theme, the AR-15.  AR-15s have exploded in popularity and sales the past 20 years, and now they are the weapon of choice for random shootings like these.  Maybe we should do something about it, or at least talk about it. instead of just blaming PTO Meetings.

AR's are THE most popular rifle in the country. There are 10's of millions of them in private hands. If they were the reason for the problem, the problem would be much, much worse. 

Also, AR's are only cosmetically different than 10's of millions of other rifles in private hands. So banning them would not have the desired effect. Those inclined to commit mass murder with a gun would simply choose another, equally deadly, option. 

So we would be forced to shift to banning all semi-auto rifles. That's never going to happen. So why even go down that road? They aren't the cause of the violence and banning them won't stop murderous individuals from doing what they do. I don't want to open the pandora's box of infringing on constitutional rights in the hopes that it might reduce the criminal misuse of firearms. It's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. We all know the government won't stop with the 2nd amendment if we give them the power to curtail our rights and freedoms in the name of "safety." 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

In reading the responses to what I proposed (unsurprising but illuminating) what it really comes down to is your basic philosophy of government. If you view the government as malevolent, will all sorts of intent to impose an ever increasing tyranny or authoritarianism, then you’re never going to agree on any measure that could even theoretically remove your individual rights. On the other hand, if you view the government as sometimes bumbling but generally well meaning with a serious interest in preserving public safety without destroying freedom, then you’re going to be more willing to accept at least moderate proposals for change. It’s basically the same debate that took place over Covid. 

You actually hit on the crux of the issue.  I hate guns, especially assault rifles.  But after what I’ve seen from the American Left the last 10-15 years, I’m 100% convinced that the latter is the far bigger threat.  No focking chance assault rifles are going anywhere.

[League Champion 1,911]

8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

AR-15.  AR-15s 

Do you even know the difference between theses and any other rifle? 

[GobbleDog 997]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

The problem with people like you is that ANY violence becomes "too much" and only being willing t accept zero means everyone has to give up all their rights, and we will still never hit zero.

Absolutely wrong. If ya asked me "Hypothetically, if US gun violence rates were consistent or even close to consistent with other first world countries, then would you favor gun control?" To which I'd say "No."

HOWEVER, "the problem with people like you" (gun righters) is there's zero reasoning. If you ask them "Hypothetically, if gun violence rates were twice has high as they are now, then would you favor gun control?"  No.  "Ten times higher?"  No.  "One hundred times higher?" No. "Is there any scenario in which you'd favor gun control?" No.  We just want guns no matter what.

How can you intelligently discuss anything with people who think like that?

[Strike 5,556]

Just now, GobbleDog said:

Absolutely wrong. If ya asked me "Hypothetically, if US gun violence rates were consistent or even close to consistent with other first world countries, then would you favor gun control?" To which I'd say "No."

HOWEVER, "the problem with people like you" (gun righters) is there's zero reasoning. If you ask them "Hypothetically, if gun violence rates were twice has high as they are now, then would you favor gun control?"  No.  "Ten times higher?"  No.  "One hundred times higher?" No. "Is there any scenario in which you'd favor gun control?" No.  We just want guns no matter what.

How can you intelligently discuss anything with people who think like that?

We have gun control.  You're advocating for MORE gun control.  People such as myself are simply asking for proof it would make a difference.  Because every time you all advocate for things that wouldn't have prevented any of these incidents.  Tim is up there asking to close the "gun show loophole."  But for 10 years I've been asking him for any evidence that anyone who used that loophole had ever committed a crime with the gun they purchased.  Guess how many cases he's shown me?  ZERO.  That doesn't fly.

[GobbleDog 997]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

We can’t remove gun rights. Too many guns, too many people own them. Let’s be realistic it ain’t gonna happen. 

Ban commercial firearm sales. Keep and bear whatever you got. Go buy as many as you want on the private market, but no new guns. Twenty, thirty years down the line... gun values skyrocket and slowly get removed from circulation through gun collectors purchases, government buy-backs, time itself takes care of some. The first to sell - the poor, the one's committing most gun violence anyway. Don't even have to amend the Constitution.

It's a beautiful plan. But it's politically unrealistic. Instead the US will take 100+ years of baby steps with do-nothing laws until they finally ban them. Gonna be a lot of carnage until then.