Mass Shooting in Ohio

#177
#177
NorthDallas40 said:
It’s more accurate than anything you’ve offered lately lady 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

So what's the point of noting that the OH shooter supported Elizabeth Warren (assuming it's true; I haven't seen it confirmed)? Nothing to indicate his shooting was done for political ends, much less ends advocated by Warren? And certainly Warren doesn't advocate or condone violent means to advance political ends.

It'd be like pointing out the shooter liked Italian food. Is that supposed to show spaghetti leads to mass shootings?

The El Paso shooter, however, was clearly driven by political ends, the same ones advocated by Trump (see his manifesto). And when a crowd member at a Trump rally shouted about using the means that were employed by the El Paso shooter ("shoot them"), Trump joked about it and everyone in the crowd laughed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#178
#178
ClearwaterVol said:
I think that flagging people with a history of severe mental illness would be a good start. This Ohio kid was a nutball and apparently it was well documented since high school.
Click to expand...
Sounds like lots of work for lawyers defending constitutonal right to privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theFallGuy
#179
#179
I have no issue with an "Assault Rifle" ban, I already have all the guns I need :)

Gonna go to Adventure Outdoors this week and grab a few 5.56 100 round mags though, maybe a few 22 round mags for my glocks as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#180
#180
evillawyer said:
So what's the point of noting that the OH shooter supported Elizabeth Warren (assuming it's true; I haven't seen it confirmed)? Nothing to indicate his shooting was done for political ends, much less ends advocated by Warren? And certainly Warren doesn't advocate or condone violent means to advance political ends.

It'd be like pointing out the shooter liked Italian food. Is that supposed to show spaghetti leads to mass shootings?

The El Paso shooter, however, was clearly driven by political ends, the same ones advocated by Trump (see his manifesto). And when a crowd member at a Trump rally shouted about using the means that were employed by the El Paso shooter ("shoot them"), Trump joked about it and everyone in the crowd laughed.
Click to expand...

It shows how bad the mental health care in this country is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and 37L1
#181
#181
evillawyer said:
So what's the point of noting that the OH shooter supported Elizabeth Warren (assuming it's true; I haven't seen it confirmed)? Nothing to indicate his shooting was done for political ends, much less ends advocated by Warren? And certainly Warren doesn't advocate or condone violent means to advance political ends.

It'd be like pointing out the shooter liked Italian food. Is that supposed to show spaghetti leads to mass shootings?

The El Paso shooter, however, was clearly driven by political ends, the same ones advocated by Trump (see his manifesto). And when a crowd member at a Trump rally shouted about using the means that were employed by the El Paso shooter ("shoot them"), Trump joked about it and everyone in the crowd laughed.
Click to expand...
Wow. You don't even try to hide your hypocrisy anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Obsessed, DynaLo and 4 others
#184
#184
ClearwaterVol said:
Purchase of guns require a background check. Simply require a HIIPA authorization.
Click to expand...
LIke I said., sounds like a violation of privacy to me.

Then again, information like that would NEVER be compromised... so maybe not a problem
 
#187
#187
evillawyer said:
So what's the point of noting that the OH shooter supported Elizabeth Warren (assuming it's true; I haven't seen it confirmed)? Nothing to indicate his shooting was done for political ends, much less ends advocated by Warren? And certainly Warren doesn't advocate or condone violent means to advance political ends.

It'd be like pointing out the shooter liked Italian food. Is that supposed to show spaghetti leads to mass shootings?

The El Paso shooter, however, was clearly driven by political ends, the same ones advocated by Trump (see his manifesto). And when a crowd member at a Trump rally shouted about using the means that were employed by the El Paso shooter ("shoot them"), Trump joked about it and everyone in the crowd laughed.
Click to expand...
LMAO! Should I go dig up your posts on the El Paso shooters “MAGA laden twitter feed” that hadnt had a post since April 2017 and I only saw TWO posts in that even referenced Trump or GOP policy? So in this post you’ve demonstrated nicely how you deflect/ignore when these individuals wind up aligned on your agenda and shriek when there is even a sliver of information showing they align with the opposite agenda (two damn posts on an inactive for two year twitter account!). Hypocrite.

And let’s get our labels right on these two. The El Paso guy was a racist and a bigot first and foremost. That’s on him not some damn political agenda you’re desperately trying to sell. You friggin libs are doing exactly what he even called you would in the manifesto. You fools are so transparent even that nut job called it clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496, Obsessed, Orange_Vol1321 and 3 others
#193
#193
ClearwaterVol said:
I think that flagging people with a history of severe mental illness would be a good start. This Ohio kid was a nutball and apparently it was well documented since high school.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest issue there might be the minor status.

I think people on both sides of the argument are down with the idea of addressing the mental issues. In fact, I'd posit the conservative/pro-gun side is even quicker to point out the mental side since it underscores blaming the person and not the inanimate object used. The problem is all the nuances involved with actually implementing actionable criteria. What about HIPAA? Who is deciding what is actionable? (No possibility of abuse there, right?) What recourse is available to challenge such actions if taken? These (and probably many others) are real questions that a great many people, and likely courts, aren't going to be too keen on the "pass it to see what's in it" approach to emotion driven laws cropping up.
 
#200
#200
hndog609 said:
I think the biggest issue there might be the minor status.

I think people on both sides of the argument are down with the idea of addressing the mental issues. In fact, I'd posit the conservative/pro-gun side is even quicker to point out the mental side since it underscores blaming the person and not the inanimate object used. The problem is all the nuances involved with actually implementing actionable criteria. What about HIPAA? Who is deciding what is actionable? (No possibility of abuse there, right?) What recourse is available to challenge such actions if taken? These (and probably many others) are real questions that a great many people, and likely courts, aren't going to be too keen on the "pass it to see what's in it" approach to emotion driven laws cropping up.
Click to expand...
Do away with the minor status. If we all have to sacrifice, minors lose too. HIPAA needs to go too.

"If only one life was saved it was worth it."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement


Back
Top