BS: Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 22 - 05:25 PM

Co operator is right. It is well done in America that guns have more rights than women and children.

3 truths;

It is easier to buy a AR 15 than to rent a car.

Gun safety will not take guns away from lawful owners

Republican States have the most gun deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Oct 22 - 11:44 AM

This guy here says he is America. You blamin' him? He tried in his day but nobody who was anybody believed it and they don't believe it still. Paul Robeson

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Oct 22 - 10:37 AM

Well done America, you have excelled yourself this time. I suppose as far as you are concerned, if the 15 month old infant was carrying a firearm he/she could have defended his/herself. But who am I to question your view that the odd infant being shot to death here or there should not interfere with your god given right to own bang bangs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/baby-three-year-old-shot-pennsylvania-b2207208.html?utm_medium=Social&ut

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Dec 21 - 10:47 PM

Ebbie, why would it not be tragic for the families of the folks killed from your overpass example? I love terminology nuances.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 21 - 08:32 AM

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/us/sandy-hook-newtown-shooting-victims-profiles/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 21 - 06:27 AM

Tragic in the news seems to apply to children. The usual adjective regarding shootings is quantitative like "today we had a triple shooting or like yesterday a quadruple shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Dec 21 - 05:22 AM

(I am apparently still not done with terminology)

As Steve Shaw said, way above there, 'tragedy' grates on me. Outcomes clearly are tragic but the event may be more infuriating than anything else.

If I go to a highway overpass and start shooting into every vehicle, it is not tragic. It may be sick, may be unhinged or a matter of anger, but it was preventable. The only way it would be tragic would be if a tumor were growing in my brain, say, so that I went from being a balanced, empathetic individual to a horrific killer.

What is tragic, to my mind, is something out of one's control. Like from tornadoes or earthquakes or a lightning strike.

And to quote Mr. Gump: That's all I have to say about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Dec 21 - 12:07 PM

In the current realm of thread drift;
The concept of improper use in military situations has more or less re-disappeared since 9-11. The old saying was if its not on paper it doesn't exist. (paperless) Verbal permission crept into the works with conducting any form of torture with the bomb is ticking excuse. Then drones, then no paper records, then anything goes upfront and behind to cover your ass. Be it the Phillipines and Viet Nam torture was ever present but G W. Bush went further to change laws with attorney Gonzales and change our Geneva Convention response protocols. Improper use only exists in a proportional response scenario at the highest levels (conventional vs Nuclear). A wink and a nod is the primary ethics of today imo
Some tortures are gentle like mock burials and some are violent. In real authoritarian regiemes burials are swift and real. Alberto Gonzales is currently the Dean of Belmont University College of Law, in Nashville, Tennessee, where he currently teaches National Security Law. The slippery torture slope for the last 20 years has become steeper and cliff like when it comes to the SOP of barbarism. There is a point where torture is worse than a m4 or ar15 wound.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 11 Dec 21 - 10:38 AM

What *is* proper use of a bomb?

If an aerial bombardment is used on an industrial site, to destroy the enemy's capability to wage war, then this could be seen as the "proper" use. Any human casualties could be seen as collateral damage or, indeed, as part of the enemy's war machine. The ultimate aim is to bring the conflict to a swift end, thus minimising death and destruction.

Improper use would be where the aim is to maximise carnage, as in a terrorist attack. The more outrages the act, the greater the publicity. The Manchester Arena bombing is a case where it was clear beforehand that many of the dead and injured would be too young to have any political influence and were thus wholly innocent victims.

Because they are so poorly managed and so badly cleared up after the event, I would put land mines firmly into the improper use.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Dec 21 - 09:45 AM

What *is* proper use of a bomb? Bombing. So not misuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 21 - 07:54 PM

"Ah, but bombing folks with a bomb is not misuse of that bomb."

Words fail me.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Dec 21 - 02:54 PM

SPB-C: Sticking to the subject of guns, you raise a broad question. Also the memory of the Simpson's episode where Homer goes to buy a gun:

"What do you mean I have to wait five days? I'm angry NOW!"

A gun manufacturer presumably does not know the individual destinies of its products. You can certainly argue that the nature of the weapon can give an idea. But the generic explanation is: "It's for protection."

And another from Homer: "Marge, it's a feeling of power. When I'm holding a gun I know what God feels like, when HE'S holding a gun!"

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Dec 21 - 09:19 AM

Ah, but bombing folks with a bomb is not misuse of that bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Dec 21 - 09:03 AM

Robomatic - by that argument, if I was to manufacture nail bombs in my kitchen (in case I am being spied on my GCHQ - I have no intention of ever doing that) - does that mean that as long as a sell them rather than use them, and clearly describe their purpose, I would be exempt from prosecution? Surely if you manufacture something, you have a duty to ensure that it is not going to fall into the hands of someone who will misuse it.

Also taking the NRA line that the solution of bad guys having guns is selling more guns to good guys is almost a gaurantee that more bad guys will get guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 08:08 PM

I'm short on the details but the NRA even managed to prevent the NIH from collecting or publishing data on gun wounds and deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 07:05 PM

I'd finesse the argument somewhat. When a gun manufacturer is taken to court over their gun having been fired and taken a life, they can answer simply that the gun did exactly what it was designed to do.

Gun manufacturers have been taken to court over malfunctioning designs. But, it has been difficult to prove that the gun went off without having its trigger pulled.

What should be worked on here is that there are ways to make guns technically more safe for their owners by making sure only their owners can fire them. The NRA took a strong stand against such developments being implemented and made available to the public. If the NRA is truly weakened this is the time to get such new age developments (not really 'new' at this stage) into production.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Dec 21 - 06:57 AM

Jump in your wayback machine and recall when auto companies first became liable for making an unsafe vehicle and faced damages for their victims; Set your dial to Unsafe at any Speed and see Ralph Nader begin his crusade. Gun Manufactures are just as vulnerable as the auto and airplane industry. It takes a crusader, victims and those taking the bribes to be exposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 02:43 PM

I thought we were in agreement that it wasn't terrorism, in our opinions?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 01:49 PM

We know that society doesn't move by logic.
I also know when a villain digs a hole deep enough leave them alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 09:52 AM

Your sense of logic seems to have taken the day off.

Again, the incident we're talking about is about as far removed from the generally-accepted meaning of terrorism as it's possible to be. I do understand that the death of your dad in a terrorist attack must be a wound that can't heal, but this thread is about the shooting "tragedies" in recent years carried out mostly by deranged people who freely possess guns and who (mostly) are not aligned with terrorist organisations.

Of course, we can make the thread about anything we like, but that's how I read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Dec 21 - 09:31 AM

Not sure what other context it would be relevant in, Steve Shaw.

And I do think that the problem with guns in America is the Americans, much more than the guns. Lots of countries, Western ones, have well-armed populations. But those people don't think that shooting other people is a viable response to being made uncomfortable, and Americans do.

And that is the problem with shootings. Sure, they require guns. But guns are not *sufficient* - only necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Dec 21 - 05:58 PM

It has fallen on students, teachers, school admin, churchs, concert goers and always late first responders instead of the true difference makers to pass sensible gun laws, which is the Republican party legislatures, for a bit of cash and temporary votes.
The NRA is in its death throes but there are other lobbys in waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Dec 21 - 09:56 AM

A number of years ago, someone managed to get an interview with a young kid in Wash. D.C. who was in jail for shooting someone.
He was asked something like..."Whatever happened to 2 guys just fighting when they had a big disagreement?"

"Man," he said, (paraphrased) "that's way too much trouble! And besides, YOU might get hurt. If you got a piece, you don't even have to get close to him... *bang*, it's over."

"But what if he and his friends come after you?"

"You just gotta be smarter than them and get them first!"
==============================

Of course it makes little sense, but in many inner cities and in certain cultures...especially when drug sales are an issue,that's a common attitude. "THEY have guns.. I need one to 'protect' myself!"

And so it goes.....

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 21 - 05:05 AM

The overwhelming majority of people neither need nor should have access to guns. That's a common feeling shared by millions in most western countries. It doesn't happen in the US because your successive administrations are scared shitless of the gun lobby (which is unelected, of course). Let's be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: gnu
Date: 07 Dec 21 - 04:02 AM

Yet again another gun thread. >:-(

I feel obligated to put in my two dollars (inflation, eh?) It ain't about guns... it's about mental health, and the access to guns by some people who should not have such access. Such has been addressed here in The Great White Frozen, and criminals still have guns. So, why don't you stop the criminals, and leave law abiding citizens alone?

DON'T ANSWER - I'm busy.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 06:30 PM

I'm afraid that you misread my post. To be expected, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 06:00 PM

Somewhat disturbed? Thats an understatement.
Over here we live within this grim gun reality like extra inflamed skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 05:26 PM

The post I responded to is no longer here, Mrrzy. My point was intended to take you up on your apparent defence of gun ownership on the grounds that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The numbers of gun killings in your country, set alongside the stats from other western countries, completely negate that argument. As for terrorism, my view is that a charge of terrorism levelled against a feckless 15-year-old who is not a member of any terrorism setup as far as we know, and who has equally feckless, stupid parents, is highly inappropriate. I'm very sorry about your father, but I'm somewhat disturbed that you feel the need to bring that up in this context. Clear enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 03:14 PM

Manslaughter by neglect is against the manufacturer.
Vehicular homicide is against the driver.

There was a gun case that began with your line of questioning but I don't think you are going that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Thompson
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 02:24 PM

Donuel, has a car maker ever been brought to court and held responsible for someone murdering someone with a car they made?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 01:44 PM

I flew to Alaska in a small plane. I bought a 'survival' rifle, a .22LR with a metal barrel and trigger assembly which could be stored in a plastic floatable stock. Always reported it to the Canadian authorities when crossing borders. One of the agents told me due to its barrel length he had the power to confiscate it. He didn't of course. I figured they designed their regulations to give them that power if they deemed the Yankee in any ways dangerous. In that era they were more concerned that I could pay my way through. Plus this was western Canada, where many of the locals had hunting weapons as well.

What is consistently ignored by the reactionary folks is that while they are so often eager to label the rifle as a 'tool' a la Rifleman with Chuck Connors, few of them reflect that the 'tool' matters. It's the idea that if your go-to tool is a hammer, your problems look like nails. If your tool is a firearm, well......

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 11:51 AM

The parents are clearly idiots. I suspect we'll be watching the political side of this roll out in coming months. Here are two more folks to work as staff for our bellicose GOP House of Representative junior members.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 09:20 AM

About what, Steve Shaw? That I don't think it was terrorism? I just don't think so. I did not state that it wasn't. And what does my not owning guns have to do with that? I speak more from a my-dad-was-killed-by-terrorists experience than anything else, there. Which you know, I think.

If it was an earlier comment, please specify.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 06:50 AM

The price of doing good business and the value of human life have become the same thing. AMMO

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Rain Dog
Date: 06 Dec 21 - 05:11 AM

I know that guns are allowed in the USA and that quite a few folks want that to continue, but...

"A US congressman has faced a barrage of criticism after he posted a Christmas photograph of his family posing with military-style rifles, just days after a deadly school shooting.

Kentucky's Republican representative, Thomas Massie, tweeted the photo with the caption: "Merry Christmas! ps. Santa, please bring ammo".

The post has been condemned by a host of families affected by gun violence, plus figures on both sides of politics."

BBC

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 01:57 PM

I can't tell you how wrong I think you are, Mrrzy.

Tell me (only if you like), do you have a gun or guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 09:59 AM

I see a 'trigedy' with more to come.

remember...
These are just the good ol days,
seeing that everything is going
to grow gradually worse. :^)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 09:26 AM

Oops, in the plural of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 09:26 AM

Following what Ebbie said, every time I open this thread the word "tragedy" grates with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 08:57 AM

The kid SAID he had problems, and gave plenty of warnings. He has a mental disease defense.
The parents have no such excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 07:45 AM

edit
Car makers HAVE respondsibilities while gun makers were legislated to be immune.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 07:03 AM

The parents are but one significant color in the rainbow of reasons for tragic shootings. The first reason is $. Its all about the Benjamines.
Its the manufacturer profits #1 and secondly the fun of effecting something at a distance as if a person has the psychic power of precision or revenge. Yeah - guns are fun, almost magical, for those who enjoy them. Then there is the psychological training for soldiers regarding the gun...don't get me started...

The 2nd ammendment is just a farcical legal excuse for gun makers.
The 2nd ammendment is also good for those who depend entirely on guns to feed their family but they are few. It was the NRA $ that gave immunity to the gun makers themselves and who still bear no legal respondsibility like car makers to this day.

Involuntary murder is the legal term in the Michigan charges against the parents. I prefer 'unintentional' murder since you may not intend to commit murder yourself but you help in the commission of murder. There is nothing involuntary about it. (they volunteered)

The child called his new gun 'my beauty'.
"The beauty of a gun in a small man's hands is what what makes them feel big."
quote donuel

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 06:48 AM

I think Creep is a bit too polite. People can be creeps as far as their behaviour is concerned, but that does not necessarily make them a murderer as well. I would tend to go for terminology such as murdering s*** which cannot be glorified in any way whatsoever. If people who use guns get used to the idea that they are seen by society as the bottom layer of pond life, then maybe that would make a difference.

Also, media needs to stop making excuses for white murderers, that somehow they are just as much a victim of something or other, whereas a black murderer would only be thought of as a murderer, and a Muslims, somehow being classed as terrorist by virtue of nothing except for their race or religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 05:22 AM

THAT should be the headline. (I wasn't finished.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Dec 21 - 05:20 AM

I see that way back in 2012 there was talk of holding parents accountable when their child acquires a gun and uses it against children. Obviously, we have learned nothing. There have been HUNDREDS of such events in the USA in 2021 - and the year isn't over yet.

I also have beef with terminology. When someone shoots up a school resulting in the deaths of multiple children, we call it a tragedy. OF COURSE, the results are tragic, but it was preventable. The act was STUPID, SICK, done by a CREEP. We need to get it across to our children that infamy is not the same as fame, that shooting unarmed people does not make you a 'gunman'.

For the moment, disregard the almost inevitable fact that the creep had 'reasons'- take care of that later. In the meantime, he is a CREEP.

I

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Dec 21 - 12:11 PM

The felony murder option has been abused mightily over the years but it does allow participants in an act to be held accountable for an event even if they didn't pull the trigger. It looks like some aspect of it will apply here for the parents who viewed the lead-up to the whole episode in reckless disregard.

They were arraigned this morning and as a MSNBC conversation pointed out yesterday, they will probably not be able to get bail bonds since they've already proven they're a flight risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Dec 21 - 11:34 AM

This country has been under fire from the NRA sponsored laws that promote children guns to the point blank legal shooting of people to stand your ground. We need to pull the trigger on reasonable gun laws to give cover to schools and society at large.
Our children are in the cross hairs of this fire fight and are caught in the crossfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Dec 21 - 06:38 PM

Michigan has no law for a mandatory lock box for guns but the prosecutor has brought charges of unintentional manslaughter against the parents who have since diaappeared. The son is charged with first degree murder. The manslaughter charges require proving 3 things of which trying to prove intent is always an uphill challenge.
Charging kids as adults has been around for decades as part of a get tough on crime program.

The FBI is mad at the prosecuter for not charging parents while in custody and the prosecutor is mad at the school and the families are sad beyond belief. The gun manufacturers and customers feel happy as a ... fill in the blank.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Thompson
Date: 03 Dec 21 - 08:58 AM

I can't understand the concept of trying a child as an adult. If someone's a child, s/he should only be brought to court as a child.

Subject: RE: BS: Shooting tragedies and guns
From: Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 02 Dec 21 - 06:12 PM

There may be no basis for criminal action, but possibly a tort for negligence.