Daily USA mass shooting thread

[sk8knight]

Please show me where I’ve been licking Trump’s boots. I’ll wait. It’s funny that you immediately jump to Trump, because it’s obvious you’re obsessed with him. I didn’t vote for him in ‘16 and won’t vote for him in ‘20.

I never asked anyone in this thread to talk about Trump. I’m curious about why people think it’s productive to lump all “mass shootings” in to the same category. I’m curious about why the number of victims is set at four, and that includes injuries. Why include drive-by instances where 4 people are shot in limbs and nobody has life threatening injuries, but not include a drive-by triple homicide where nobody else is injured? Somebody with a gang hit list and good aim is less likely to be considered a “mass shooter,” but is far more dangerous in reality.

Obviously gun violence is an issue, and addressing it requires an honest look at what’s going on. Commenting on a thread about a terrorist shooting at random people at NAS Pensacola with a misleading figure suggesting that this sort of thing has happened well over 350 times is not taking an honest look at what’s going on.

Maybe you’re not interested in a real discussion with people who disagree with you. Maybe you’d rather just call people names and make assumptions about them because it’a easier than thinking about and defending what your position is.

Using that 350 number of "mass shootings" as if it equates to 350 El Paso, Las Vegas, Pulse events is a horrible misrepresentation. The "mass shooting" that is being used in the 350 number is the one where 4 or more people are injured. You're including in those numbers gang-vs-gang warfare, familial murder suicides, fights in public places that escalate to someone firing a weapon, law enforcement actions on hostages/gangs/fleeing suspected felons where the LEOs were included in the wounded and even accidents. In other words, not random acts of violence in largely gun-free zones where someone targets a bunch of unarmed innocents for no real reason. Also, that number was compiled from a bunch of news reports, which are notoriously inaccurate.

If you're just using it to address gun violence, then the necessary component of that is the violence. Reduce the urge to want to kill other people and you not only reduce gun violence, but also knife violence, blunt instrument violence, car violence, etc.

 

[Knight In TN]

Using that 350 number of "mass shootings" as if it equates to 350 El Paso, Las Vegas, Pulse events is a horrible misrepresentation. The "mass shooting" that is being used in the 350 number is the one where 4 or more people are injured. You're including in those numbers gang-vs-gang warfare, familial murder suicides, fights in public places that escalate to someone firing a weapon, law enforcement actions on hostages/gangs/fleeing suspected felons where the LEOs were included in the wounded and even accidents. In other words, not random acts of violence in largely gun-free zones where someone targets a bunch of unarmed innocents for no real reason. Also, that number was compiled from a bunch of news reports, which are notoriously inaccurate.

If you're just using it to address gun violence, then the necessary component of that is the violence. Reduce the urge to want to kill other people and you not only reduce gun violence, but also knife violence, blunt instrument violence, car violence, etc.

And that’s the point I’ve been making. There’s a real discussion to be had here, but it’s not going to happen when there’s dishonesty going on designed to make people hysterical about it.

Las Vegas, Parkland, and shootings like that are terrible and steps should be taken to make sure those shootings happen less often.

But gang violence happening in inner cities around the country is a much bigger problem, and wouldn’t be fixed by the same approach.

Both problems should be fixed, but treating them like they’re the same problem won’t fix either of them.

 

[UCFWayne]

And that’s the point I’ve been making. There’s a real discussion to be had here, but it’s not going to happen when there’s dishonesty going on designed to make people hysterical about it.

Las Vegas, Parkland, and shootings like that are terrible and steps should be taken to make sure those shootings happen less often.

But gang violence happening in inner cities around the country is a much bigger problem, and wouldn’t be fixed by the same approach.

Both problems should be fixed, but treating them like they’re the same problem won’t fix either of them.

both sides arent interested in actually fixing the problem. the problem is so polarizing that it makes for good fund raiser fodder. unfortunately i dont see that changing any time soon.

 

[Knight In TN]

both sides arent interested in actually fixing the problem. the problem is so polarizing that it makes for good fund raiser fodder. unfortunately i dont see that changing any time soon.

That might be the biggest issue with politics at the moment. Congress was never meant to be anyone’s career, but that’s where we are. The group that’s supposed to shape the legal landscape in this country is in a constant state of fundraising and campaigning to keep their jobs. They spend a very small amount of time governing, and the vast majority of their time campaigning. So they pander to their bases and constantly try to make the next sound bite for their social media posts and campaign commercials.

 

[UCFWayne]

That might be the biggest issue with politics at the moment. Congress was never meant to be anyone’s career, but that’s where we are. The group that’s supposed to shape the legal landscape in this country is in a constant state of fundraising and campaigning to keep their jobs. They spend a very small amount of time governing, and the vast majority of their time campaigning. So they pander to their bases and constantly try to make the next sound bite for their social media posts and campaign commercials.

campaign laws need to be changed, but the powers that be, the select elite and lobby groups dont want it to change. so it doesnt.

i saw a video about it awhile back. these guys spend like 6 or 7 hours a day campaigning for money. that doesnt leave a lot of time to actually read/write these laws before voting on them. not just that but the speakers of both parties have too much power. certain committees have more weight than others, even though they might not be that important, but because they are for select causes that bring in money to the parties. its a vicious cycle that sees a lot of good politicians that actually care burn out.

its 2019, why cant they have go fund me accounts or something similar?

 

[ShinobiWolf]

Own the chuds instead of the libs

@ShinobiWolf great job, flawless execution.

Hell yeah brother, though you wield a mighty bonk of a great sword (one handed), it’s my honor to unsheathe my sabimaru of truth as we dismantle the establishment one post at a time.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” - MLK

 

[Knight In TN]

campaign laws need to be changed, but the powers that be, the select elite and lobby groups dont want it to change. so it doesnt.

i saw a video about it awhile back. these guys spend like 6 or 7 hours a day campaigning for money. that doesnt leave a lot of time to actually read/write these laws before voting on them. not just that but the speakers of both parties have too much power. certain committees have more weight than others, even though they might not be that important, but because they are for select causes that bring in money to the parties. its a vicious cycle that sees a lot of good politicians that actually care burn out.

its 2019, why cant they have go fund me accounts or something similar?

Term limits would do a lot. They don’t need to spend their whole careers in Congress.

It’s pretty ridiculous for someone to represent a district they don’t live in. It’s even more ridiculous for them to raise huge money from outside the district.

If your campaign money comes from someone other than who you’re supposed to represent, who are you actually representing? I’d be in support of completely banning money from outside a district from being donated to campaigns.

 

[UCFWayne]

Term limits would do a lot. They don’t need to spend their whole careers in Congress.

It’s pretty ridiculous for someone to represent a district they don’t live in. It’s even more ridiculous for them to raise huge money from outside the district.

If your campaign money comes from someone other than who you’re supposed to represent, who are you actually representing? I’d be in support of completely banning money from outside a district from being donated to campaigns.

100% agree you should have to live in your district and i think your money should have to come from your district.