Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

Tchaikovsky

WrenBoy wrote: »

Now the question is will the media go with the white supremacist angle and avoid the reported (confirmed?) islam connection or just not report on this at all.

If he had some Isis-focused manifesto, in the same vein that the white supremacist shooters had made their motivations known beforehand, then yes they should. If it's just because he happens to be Muslim so that the "religion of peace" bullsh1t can be spewed, then no.

WrenBoy

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

If he had some Isis-focused manifesto, in the same vein that the white supremacist shooters had made their motivations known beforehand, then yes they should. If it's just because he happens to be Muslim so that the "religion of peace" bullsh1t can be spewed, then no.

Any incident that involves a white perpetrator these days is held up as an evidence of white supremacy and the rise of the far right.

Manic Moran

banie01 wrote: »

The 4th amendment is the right to be secure against search and seizure of person or property without warrant or cause.
Most Americans would argue that amendment actually further secures their 2a rights.

If nothing else, on a practical basis. Even if, somehow, guns were banned in the US, the 4th Amendment would prohibit speculatively searching people or places to confiscate them. If someone thinks the 2nd is taken seriously, they should see the legal protections given the 4th. Often the 4th Amendment prohibits police from stopping anyone just because they're carrying a gun. See, for example, or https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/spotting-a-concealed-gun-is-not-reason-enough-for-police-to-stop-and-investigate-top-state-court-rules

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that police violate the Fourth Amendment when they stop people simply because they are carrying concealed guns.

The Friday ruling overturns a 1991 state decision that had held that carrying a concealed gun constitutes reasonable suspicion for police to stop the individual and investigate whether the person has the proper gun license,

Any hand-wringing about how many guns are in the US is pointless because the numbers won't get any smaller. The legal environment will not permit it, and the possibilities of abuse are so great that you won't see the 4th Amendment being revoked just so people can go find guns, most of which aren't a problem in the first place. The correct thing to do is to get people to want to stop shooting at each other.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

If their gun laws were as strict as their alcohol laws, they wouldn't have a problem.

Let me see what the CDC has to say about that.
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html#:~:text=Excessive%20alcohol%20use%20is%20responsible,years%20of%20potential%20life%20lost.

Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day.

That's just the health effects... Then add in another 10,400 killed in drunk driving accidents each year.
For the record, I don't need to submit to a federal background check to buy a beer. Given those figures, maybe it's just as well firearms laws here are stricter than alcohol laws.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Maybe restrict weapons to the type available to the Founding Fathers.

Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that out as well. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding

However, it is worth noting that the Constitution of Colorado dates to 1876, Article II states "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." Cartridge firearms were well in service by then. (And it wasn't an amendment either, it was there from day 1)

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Maybe minimum unit pricing for bullets would reduce gun use

Currently being argued in California, though under a different basis (Flat fee for purchase of ammunition regardless of amount purchased, so a box of .22 ammo for youngsters is ridiculously expensive per round, but a guy buying 1,000 rounds of 7.62 won't notice it much). However, be careful, as anything Constitutionally protected cannot be taxed to the level that it becomes too expensive to exercise that right. Marianas tried it a couple of years ago, putting a massive tax on handguns, since they could not ban them. https://www.nmid.uscourts.gov/documents/decisions/1-14-cv-00026-109.pdf
Federal court said 'no'. "And what the Commonwealth cannot do by ban or regulation, it cannot do by taxation"

Bear in mind, poor people have the right to self defense, it should not be for only rich people to be able to afford it. Quoting the above court opinion:
"Public safety cannot be the legitimate interest, unless the Commonwealth seeks to safeguard the community by disarming the poor. The Court will not ascribe such an invidious motive to the legislature"

And, yes, ammunition is covered under 2A. As is target shooting, and a number of other ancillary activities, that's been settled by the courts as well.

Samsonsmasher

Gun control will not stop mass shootings any more than drug laws will stop the drug trade.
Criminals and crazy people don't obey laws.
Preventing law abiding people from defending themselves will be the only result.
In any case there are already hundreds of millions of handguns and tens of millions of rifles and billions of bullets in circulation already.

"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."

What that means is you have an organized military and armed law enforcement to defend your country but the right of the people to bear arms is not prohibited because the time might come when they would have to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
The right of people can't be taken away by the militia - the military and law enforcement on behalf of a tyrannical government.
A government that tries to take away this inalienable right is by definition tyrannical.
The first shots of the American War of Independence were fired when redcoats tried to precisely that - disarm the men of a town assembled in protest at their attempt to seize their arms.
If a wacko kills 10 people that doesn't justify taking away the right to bear arms from the people either.

kildare lad

Tell me how wrote: »

They're more pro-target than they are pro-life.

Just aswell there was police around to stop the gunman including one who heroically gave his life . Imagine how much more he'd have killed , if the defund the police movement have gotten their way , which you've been so vocal supporting on boards .

Pinch Flat

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

It's sad that when you see a thread title like this one's, you check the date of the OP because they're so regular. 10 dead probably isn't even considered a mass shooting in the US anymore.

Yeah I think the quota is 3 or 5 to be classed as a massed shooting. Open to correction. A friend in the US just put up a FB post that's theres been 7 mass shootings in 7 days. The gun lobby has an easy solution- more guns. Crazy situation.

Manic Moran

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

What that means is you have an organized military and armed law enforcement to defend your country but the right of the people to bear arms is not prohibited because the time might come when they would have to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

This is a common misconception. Bear in mind that 2A at the time applied -only- to the Federal government. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until the second half of the 19th Century. The reason the 2A exists at the federal level is because at the time, there were insurrections against the State governments, and the States wanted to be able to call out their militias in order to put them down, and didn't want the Federal government to be able to prohibit them from doing so. If somehow the Federal Government disarmed the populace, the militia could not exist for the States to use. It was a de-facto that people had firearms, they didn't need government approval to have them. A gun control conversation such as we have today would have been inconceivable in the 1800s in North America, not least because also the war of independence was pretty fresh in peoples' memories, and started with confiscation of firearms by the higher-than-colonial government in Concord Mass. The states didn't want their new independence jeopardised by a federal government which replaced the british government with their own plans for control over a disarmed populace, so insofar as a 'tyrannical government' goes, that's as close as it gets, it was a secondary benefit. Indeed, the history of the US federal army was one of great mistrust and short-budgeting even during times of conflict with France or the UK.

Protections at the individual level, however, if anyone felt inclined to be redundant enough to put them in, were (and are) in the State constitutions. 2A dates to 1791, but the Constitution of Pennsylvania has the oldest unchanged right to arms in the country, dating from 1776. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power"

The US getting its own version of the troubles.

Cuddlesworth

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Gun control will not stop mass shootings any more than drug laws will stop the drug trade.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Don't let every other country in the world with strict gun laws as actual evidence get in the way of that argument or anything.

kildare lad

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah I think the quota is 3 or 5 to be classed as a massed shooting. Open to correction. A friend in the US just put up a FB post that's theres been 7 mass shootings in 7 days. The gun lobby has an easy solution- more guns. Crazy situation.

I remember reading that it had to be 4 or more victims to be classed as a mass shooting

Real Donald Trump

WrenBoy wrote: »

Now the question is will the media go with the white supremacist angle and avoid the reported (confirmed?) islam connection or just not report on this at all.

I think we all know how it will go


https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1374387886716456967

TomTomTim

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

I think we all know how it will go


https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1374387886716456967

The VP's niece was quick to blame the white male without evidence too. She's deleted her tweet since.

Here's another

https://twitter.com/hemjhaveri/status/1374204694634115074

biko

I don't know how yet, but somehow this will be Trump's fault.

biko

I'll take that bet

https://twitter.com/atdavidhoffman/status/1374124953029779462?s=20

Real Donald Trump

biko wrote: »

I don't know how yet, but somehow this will be Trump's fault.

Ofc it will


https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1374389110245232642

salmocab

It’s very odd that people here have mentioned Trump several times now.

CtevenSrowder

salmocab wrote: »

It’s very odd that people here have mentioned Trump several times now.

Can we not just consign that bloke to the history books were he belongs. Always, always gets mentioned.

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

I don't know how yet, but somehow this will be Trump's fault.

I'm sure Fox News will tell you exactly what to think.
They pretty much ignored the incident yesterday by all accounts, I'm guessing they're furiously writing up some new chyrons as we speak.

banie01

Manic Moran wrote: »

If nothing else, on a practical basis. Even if, somehow, guns were banned in the US, the 4th Amendment would prohibit speculatively searching people or places to confiscate them. If someone thinks the 2nd is taken seriously, they should see the legal protections given the 4th. Often the 4th Amendment prohibits police from stopping anyone just because they're carrying a gun. See, for example, or https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/spotting-a-concealed-gun-is-not-reason-enough-for-police-to-stop-and-investigate-top-state-court-rules

That's what I said, but thanks for the elucidation.

Strumms

whisky_galore wrote: »

Routine by now, they'll never wean themselves off gun fetishism.

It’s 230 years since the 2nd amendment was ratified.

19,000 people were killed by firearm in the US in 2020... in the 230 years since the 2nd amendment there hasn’t been one attempt to size power from the elected government..if there was, simply the army and police are there.... guns is simply an industry and a mindset... but a costly one...

That country pays a fûcking mighty high price for to protect itself from something happening, which actually can’t happen...try telling that to to gun nuts though.

Timmy O Toole

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The way Americans view guns is the same way the Irish view drink. Guns are endemic in American culture just the same way drink is here.

Irelands drinking culture is a myth. Go to Eastern Europe to see a proper drinking culture

Tell me how

https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1374372426969063432

Satire aside, I'd say if the shooters religion etc is confirmed, I bet there'll be a dramatic swing on the right as to the need to find a way to stop this. Probably won't be banning guns though.

silverharp

a lot of the blue checkmarks are morons, this one's apology shows how biased they are

https://twitter.com/meenaharris/status/1374390208074895364

Tell me how

Strumms wrote: »

It’s 230 years since the 2nd amendment was ratified.

19,000 people were killed by firearm in the US in 2020... in the 230 years since the 2nd amendment there hasn’t been one attempt to size power from the elected government..if there was, simply the army and police are there.... guns is simply an industry and a mindset... but a costly one...

That country pays a fûcking mighty high price for to protect itself from something happening, which actually can’t happen...try telling that to to gun nuts though.

The same gun nuts who were the ones who sought to overthrow democracy just 10 weeks ago.

Samsonsmasher

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is a common misconception. Bear in mind that 2A at the time applied -only- to the Federal government. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until the second half of the 19th Century. The reason the 2A exists at the federal level is because at the time, there were insurrections against the State governments, and the States wanted to be able to call out their militias in order to put them down, and didn't want the Federal government to be able to prohibit them from doing so. If somehow the Federal Government disarmed the populace, the militia could not exist for the States to use. It was a de-facto that people had firearms, they didn't need government approval to have them. A gun control conversation such as we have today would have been inconceivable in the 1800s in North America, not least because also the war of independence was pretty fresh in peoples' memories, and started with confiscation of firearms by the higher-than-colonial government in Concord Mass. The states didn't want their new independence jeopardised by a federal government which replaced the british government with their own plans for control over a disarmed populace, so insofar as a 'tyrannical government' goes, that's as close as it gets, it was a secondary benefit. Indeed, the history of the US federal army was one of great mistrust and short-budgeting even during times of conflict with France or the UK.

Protections at the individual level, however, if anyone felt inclined to be redundant enough to put them in, were (and are) in the State constitutions. 2A dates to 1791, but the Constitution of Pennsylvania has the oldest unchanged right to arms in the country, dating from 1776. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power"

The threat to individual liberty never goes away. Some feared Trump or Obama would be a tyrant. There is no reason why America could not become a tyranny just as the Roman Republic did. The greatest insurance policy against that happening is the 2A.

The comma in the 2A is overlooked by gun control advocates.

The people are clearly delineated from the militia and a correct reading is that the people have the right to bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from using the militia to take away all their other rights.

Samsonsmasher

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Don't let every other country in the world with strict gun laws as actual evidence get in the way of that argument or anything.

Did you read the rest of my post?

I pointed out the obvious.

Hundreds of millions of handguns tens of millions of rifles and billions of bullets are in private hands.

Ban guns and then try to gather up those guns and ammo and see of what happens!

salmocab

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

Did you read the rest of my post?

I pointed out the obvious.

Hundreds of millions of handguns tens of millions of rifles and billions of bullets are in private hands.

Ban guns and then try to gather up those guns and ammo and see of what happens!

Your right they should continue with the current strategy that is so wildly successful.

votecounts

Its savage murders like this that makes me thank god we didn't make gun ownership legal here.

Strumms

The most restrictive gun laws in the us are in Hawaii....from 2008-2017 they had the lowest gun death rates of all the states per 1000 people.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

votecounts wrote: »

Its savage murders like this that makes me thank god we didn't make gun ownership legal here.

Gun ownership is legal here in Ireland.