 
     |
| School shootings... what changed? (Page 30/33) |
|
2.5
|
JUN 13, 02:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That doesn't ring true to me.
|
|
We know.
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JUN 13, 05:58 PM
|
|
|
The weird thing is that damn near every single mass shooter has posted his lunatic ramblings online and nobody stopped them. Many were investigated by law enforcement and nobody stopped them. It seems the purpose of law enforcement is actually to photograph the crime scene.
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JUN 14, 10:12 PM
|
|
Why is it that some folks think criminals are buying and registering their weapons?
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe the police can protect you when you are facing a criminal intent to take your money, possessions or your life. Although, generally the police will call an ambulance for you once they arrive.
Rams
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 14, 10:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
The weird thing is that damn near every single mass shooter has posted his lunatic ramblings online and nobody stopped them. Many were investigated by law enforcement and nobody stopped them. It seems the purpose of law enforcement is actually to photograph the crime scene. |
|
The Buffalo perpetrator posted his online manifesto about 40 hours before he perpetrated. He posted it using a screen name or online identity, so not a lot of time for anyone to try to figure out his real identity and how to stop him. Had there been any such effort from the time that the manifesto became visible online. (I don't know whether there was any such effort.)
He did have a history of talking about suicide (according to some reports), so perhaps he could have been "red flagged" and thereby prevented from purchasing the weapon(s) and ammo (and body armor) that he used. Or at least prevented from purchasing what he purchased in the straightforward, legally permissible, "over the gun dealer's counter" kinds of transactions that he was able to engage in and did engage in in order to equip himself to perpetrate.
Although a resident of New York State, he bought some of his perpetrator's gear in nearby Pennsylvania. I think he bought the gun that he used in New York State and then went to Pennsylvania to fit it with a larger magazine or modify it in some other way that went outside of what was legally permissible in New York.
Maybe what should have happened in his case will become more feasible now, given what the New York State legislature and governor enacted in the wake of Uvalde. And maybe if the "bi-partisan" gun safety legislation that is currently being drafted in the U.S. Senate is finalized and passed, and then passed by the House and signed into law at the national level by the President.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-14-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 14, 11:16 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
The weird thing is that damn near every single mass shooter has posted his lunatic ramblings online and nobody stopped them. Many were investigated by law enforcement and nobody stopped them. It seems the purpose of law enforcement is actually to photograph the crime scene. |
|
I think that assessment is way off target. I haven't seen that the Uvalde perpetrator (for example) ever posted any kind of manifesto online. The age 64 perpetrator who killed 58 people in Las Vegas in 2017 created no manifesto and did not even indulge in a suicide note.
Here's something I just came across as I thought about how to complete this "manifesto" of my own, about the Sandy Hook perp; to wit:
"The Enigma of Adam Lanza’s Mind and Motivations for Murder"
Peter Langman, in the Journal of Campus Behavioral Intervention; 2015.
https://cdn.nabita.org/webs...BIT2015_Article1.pdf
| quote | | Though originally Lanza was said to have left no Internet footprint, this has turned out to be incorrect. |
|
But nothing so clear or as obvious as a "manifesto."
When there is a manifesto, that tends to raise the national news profile of the shooting, but I assert that there have been many manifesto-less mass shootings over the years, where the number of gunshot victims is just the minimum of 4 (not counting the perp) or not greatly above the minimum of 4 that's needed to qualify as an Official mass shooting. The sort of generic, "flies under the national news radar" kind of shooting at some out of the way industrial or office complex (etc.) perpetrated by a disgruntled employee or ex-employee. That kind of thing. The more mundane kinds of mass shootings.
I assert that when there is a manifesto, that raises the news profile, and so that creates a misleading impression about how many times there is a manifesto; i.e., a kind of Confirmation Bias. I think this is why there is a tendency for people to think that manifestos are more common than the records actually confirm.
QED.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-14-2022).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
JUN 15, 01:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
Why is it that some folks think criminals are buying and registering their weapons?
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe the police can protect you when you are facing a criminal intent to take your money, possessions or your life. Although, generally the police will call an ambulance for you once they arrive.
Rams |
|
Baffling isnt it. People who don't think things through for themselves.
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JUN 17, 06:42 PM
|
|
Well, the latest shooting was in Alabama (a church), committed by a 70 year old. Over 21 by a long shot. Reported to have used a pistol.
No one under 71 should be allowed to buy, possess or have access to these tools. 
Rams
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
JUN 17, 06:54 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
Why is it that some folks think criminals are buying and registering their weapons?
It takes a special kind of stupid to believe the police can protect you when you are facing a criminal intent to take your money, possessions or your life. Although, generally the police will call an ambulance for you once they arrive.
Rams |
|
No **** man.....
If I wanted, I could have an entire arsenal here (courtesy of Detroit  )...What are ya's libs, new at this ??? HOW long do you think it takes to paddle across the St. Clair river on a dark night ???
I simply dont want. I am too old, too out-of-shape-and too broken to make proper use of sporting or hunting rifles anymore. Home-defence ?....I can kill ya dead with an unregulated weapon, and without a firearms-permit
Younger days, I swum that.
Government controls 2 things, and 2 things only. Elvis and **** ........
And Elvis has left the building.
Ya REALLY think just because you make some "rule" and call it "law" that says "you cant do that" you will be obeyed ?????
With jackboot thugs to enforce them ?????
JUST like those woke censorship "you cant say that" and "you cant think that" ..."Laws"
Yeh.....how's that working out for ya'all ?????
Gaawwddd-damn right I broke your speech and thought "laws"....now WTF are ya going to do about it ????? Go **** yourself if ya dont like it. This is not the complaints department.
<edit>
Freedom is not obedience....and obedience is not freedom. George Orwell doesnt live here.
And then ya get SOOOOOOOOOOO ****ing surprised when somebody finally got pushed to far and did something about it. Took down the tormentors.....guess what. We as a species have been doing that since Neanderthal ooga used a mastodon bone to smash booga's skull for stealing fire...
We are a violent species that doesnt tolerate **** at an individual level....get used to it, we have been that way for a few million years.
<edit-edit>
Signed a proud non-law-abiding criminal. Like prohabition, when "law" says I cant drink a beer....yeh, about that. **** off.[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-17-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 17, 08:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
[Scroll back one message to see what was said.] |
|
If I say that I think it would be better to have a new law—let's designate it for the sake of this discussion as "A4.37-c"—that restricts or regulates the sale or transfer of firearms in some way that goes beyond whatever laws are already on the books, I am not saying it because I expect that everyone is going to willingly comply with A4.37-c.
After contemplating the preceding message, it seems like a call to anarchy... a mindset that wants to argue for the abandonment of any and all laws and law enforcement, "period."
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
JUN 17, 08:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
If I say that I think it would be better to have a new law—let's designate it for the sake of this discussion as "A4.37-c"—that restricts or regulates the sale or transfer of firearms in some way that goes beyond whatever laws are already on the books, I am not saying it because I expect that everyone is going to willingly comply with A4.37-c.
After contemplating the preceding message, it seems like a call to anarchy... a mindset that wants to argue for the abandonment of any and all laws and law enforcement, "period." |
|
I'm shocked Rinsey....
Shocked out of my boots...well...running shoes. And cane I can shake at you !!!
Gotta-dimmit man, my walker triped over the sidewalk...
BTW, Rinse.....I dont have the slightest fear of you being armed.....Why do you fear me doing the same ?[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-17-2022).]
|
|
|
|