The right to bear arms

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1729283831440740397?t=2cM2Z3w6Ibqjdi2DBE05gA&s=19

Hold it, hold it.  This should be under the definition of "brandishing"  You can carry a long gun quite easily without a hand on the grip near the trigger...

I'm all for 2A but not stupidity like this.

Gern Blansten

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

See above.  It should have been a brandishing law that he broke.  Policing and laws befuddle me sometimes...

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1729283831440740397?t=2cM2Z3w6Ibqjdi2DBE05gA&s=19

What a country. ‘Murikkka.

If you or I were to drive by a school zone speeding at 50 mph or drive by a buss with it’s stop signs flashing, your ass gets a big fine points on your license or even take your license! But it’s ok to parade with an AR15 on your shoulders right by a school no problem? wtf happened to this nation’a priorities? When did they just disappeared 

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

Didn't you know? Every good guy w/ a gun is a good guy right up until he starts firing. & by then it's too late. 

At the end of the day, gun violence is good for the GOP bottom line. Once you accept that, all the inaction makes sense. 

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

See above.  It should have been a brandishing law that he broke.  Policing and laws befuddle me sometimes...

So you're saying that there is a difference between "open carry" and brandishing? And he broke a brandishing law? 

The problem isn't brandishing or open carry...it's that idiots like that are allowed to have massive firearms.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

See above.  It should have been a brandishing law that he broke.  Policing and laws befuddle me sometimes...

So you're saying that there is a difference between "open carry" and brandishing? And he broke a brandishing law? 

The problem isn't brandishing or open carry...it's that idiots like that are allowed to have massive firearms.

Shall not be infringed, bro... disregard the language about well regulated tho. 

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

See above.  It should have been a brandishing law that he broke.  Policing and laws befuddle me sometimes...

So you're saying that there is a difference between "open carry" and brandishing? And he broke a brandishing law? 

The problem isn't brandishing or open carry...it's that idiots like that are allowed to have massive firearms.

I'm not a lawyer or law maker but brandishing is quite different from open carry.  Seeing that pic would have me calling it brandishing.

Open carry is carrying the weapon on a sling or holstered.  Brandishing is having your hand on the grip which is what he is clearly doing.

Now why?!? Someone would want to carry a weapon like this down a street is beyond me.  Guns are cool but they aren't toys and you don't want people being afraid and don't want the cops to shoot your ass for what seems like obeying the law...

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

I've said it for years....we'll get to a point where open carry is a thing of the past. There will be too many instances where a guy like the above is walking around legally and everything is fine and good until he does something horrible.

We just need a lot more blood spilled and children murdered before the GOP "gets it."

See above.  It should have been a brandishing law that he broke.  Policing and laws befuddle me sometimes...

So you're saying that there is a difference between "open carry" and brandishing? And he broke a brandishing law? 

The problem isn't brandishing or open carry...it's that idiots like that are allowed to have massive firearms.

There is a difference. I don't know what the laws are for brandishing a weapon in TN.
But generally speaking, open carry is what tempo said, carrying a gun in a holster or another way, but is visible to others. Brandishing is actively holding it as if you're ready to shoot or waiving it around in a threatening manner.
When I hear open carry, I picture a gun in a holster.

Gern Blansten

There might be a difference in the definition but unless you are pointing the gun at someone or waiving it violently you aren't going to get charged with anything. 

You can't holster a rifle

static111

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1729283831440740397?t=2cM2Z3w6Ibqjdi2DBE05gA&s=19

Hold it, hold it.  This should be under the definition of "brandishing"  You can carry a long gun quite easily without a hand on the grip near the trigger...

I'm all for 2A but not stupidity like this.

Dude nobody needs to carry a rifle through a residential neighborhood on the sidewalk.  In that setting no matter how you carry it it's brandishing, this isn't a field and the guy is out on a hunt.

OnWis97

static111 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1729283831440740397?t=2cM2Z3w6Ibqjdi2DBE05gA&s=19

Hold it, hold it.  This should be under the definition of "brandishing"  You can carry a long gun quite easily without a hand on the grip near the trigger...

I'm all for 2A but not stupidity like this.

Dude nobody needs to carry a rifle through a residential neighborhood on the sidewalk.  In that setting no matter how you carry it it's brandishing, this isn't a field and the guy is out on a hunt.

In a figurative sense, I agree. I think most people will react to that gun with nervousness whether he's holding it like this or its strapped across his back. I suppose the gun enthusiasts would say either that that is the reaction of a soft snowflake or that we just have to get used to seeing it until we all feel safer with all the good guys around.

To me, it's all brandishing with the only difference being whether they're pointing it directly at someone or not. When some guy thinks he looks like a badass with a big gun hanging from his back while waiting to place his order at Subway, I think he looks like a guy that either lives in constant fear or is looking for an excuse to use it. Either way, it's threatening in and of itself.

That all said...I've never once run across this. I suppose I will some day. Not exactly sure how I'll react.

Gern Blansten

And regardless of whether he is "brandishing" or "carrying" the holder of the weapon isn't dangerous to anyone until they start aiming and shooting.

We are a fucking bunch of morons for putting up with this shit.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

There might be a difference in the definition but unless you are pointing the gun at someone or waiving it violently you aren't going to get charged with anything. 

You can't holster a rifle

I don't disagree. But even though you can't holster a rifle, you don't need to carry it in a way that is ready to shoot. Don,t need to hold it up against your shoulder with your finger on or near the trigger. If it takes pointing it at someone to be considered brandishing, then that law should be changed.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

And regardless of whether he is "brandishing" or "carrying" the holder of the weapon isn't dangerous to anyone until they start aiming and shooting.

We are a fucking bunch of morons for putting up with this shit.

And the laughing stock of the developed world as well. 

We care more for our guns than we do our children. American exceptionalism indeed. 

Gern Blansten

When the law can't tell the good guys from the bad guys we're fucked. You can't tell anymore.

Halifax2TheMax

Speaks for itself. What a country! Over/under for 2024?

Double mass shootings over weekend set grim U.S. record

In less than 90 minutes on Sunday afternoon, two 911 calls led police in Texas and Washington to two mass shootings that pushed the nation to a gruesome milestone.

They were the 37th and 38th shootings this year in which four or more victims were killed, the highest number of mass killings in any year since at least 2006. Last year’s 36 was the previous record.

In Dallas, a 21-year-old man who was supposed to be wearing an ankle monitor because of a previous aggravated assault charge walked into a house and shot five people, killing a toddler and three adults. He fled in a stolen car, police said, but fatally shot himself as highway patrol officers chased him. In a suburb of Vancouver, Wash., five family members died in what sheriff’s deputies think was a murder-suicide.

The latest deaths brought the 2023 total to 197, not counting the shooters — yet another record. Ninety-one people were wounded in those events but survived.

Like most mass killings, the most recent pair occurred not in headline-grabbing public locations but in private homes.

The Washington Post calls a shooting in which four people are killed, excluding the shooter, a “mass killing with a gun,” because the term “mass shooting” has no universal definition. The database The Post uses is compiled by the Associated Press, USA Today and Northeastern University and dates to 2006. Learn more about mass killings here.

Other organizations define a mass shooting more broadly and so report much larger numbers, such as Gun Violence Archive, which includes events in which multiple people have been shot, regardless of whether anyone died.

Shootings have increased in recent years

Mass killings with guns rose in 2019 but dropped during the first year of the coronavirus pandemic. As daily life gradually returned to normal, the frequency of the deadliest shootings crept up.

The record is “a tragic, shameful milestone that should — but probably will not — serve as a wake-up call” to lawmakers opposing gun regulations, said Thomas Abt, founding director of the Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction and an associate research professor at the University of Maryland. “The rise in mass shootings is driven by many factors, but increasingly easy access to firearms is the primary cause.”

Mass killings are not an epidemic, but the tip of the gun-violence iceberg, said James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern who manages the mass killings database and has studied such violence for more than 40 years. They account for a tiny percentage of gun deaths.

More than 48,000 people died of gunshot wounds in 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which averages out to about 132 deaths per day. More than half of those were suicides.

“Far too many people are being killed by their own hand or by someone else’s hand,” Fox said. “And mass shootings just happen to be the most visible.”

The majority took place in homes

This year began with seven mass killings with guns in January, the most of any month in the database.

The first occurred right after the new year in Enoch, Utah. On Jan. 4, police discovered the bodies of a 42-year-old insurance agent, his estranged wife, their five children, ages 4 to 17, and his wife’s mother, all shot in the head. Police said a suicide note next to the man’s body blamed his wife for the family’s problems.

This year, as well as every year since at least 2006, the largest number of mass killings occurred in private homes or shelters — at least 26 of the 38.

Nineteen were committed by people who killed members of their own families, including current or former romantic partners and children. At least three of the other shootings, as appears to be the case in Dallas, involved neighbors killing neighbors.

The largest occurred in public

The deadliest shooting of 2023 took place Oct. 25 in Lewiston, Maine, when an Army reservist who had experienced recent psychiatric problems opened fire in a bowling alley and a bar that was hosting a weekly cornhole tournament. He killed 18 people and wounded 13. After a two-day manhunt, police found his body in a trailer. The man apparently died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

That total surpassed the death toll from Jan. 21, when a 72-year-old ballroom dancer fatally shot 11 with a semiautomatic rifle during a Lunar New Year celebration at a dance studio he frequented in Monterey Park, Calif. He went to a second studio but was disarmed by a member of the family who owned it, took off in his van and killed himself as police approached.

Ten of the 38 shootings happened in public places, including at an outlet mall in Texas, a bank in Kentucky, a mushroom farm in California and a birthday party in Alabama.

One was at a Nashville elementary school, when on March 27, a former student killed three 9-year-olds and three adults.

Just three shootings as of Monday were known or thought to be related to robberies, gang conflicts or drug-related crimes.

Instead, most perpetrators lashed out at strangers or people they knew, and they did so despite knowing the result would probably be their own death or life imprisonment, said Adam Lankford, chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama. They had “no hope for the future.”

Beyond the sheer number of mass shootings, Lankford finds this year’s record particularly troubling. “American society has become better at understanding mass shooting warning signs and threat assessment strategies,” he said.

And yet they keep happening.

https://apple.news/AzehtzbWnTnGz_Uk7N9tdog

Halifax2TheMax

Here’s some fucking madness for you.
And way to be “responsible.”

Opinion  We must find a way to stop U.S. guns from getting to Mexican cartels

Republicans’ incendiary anti-Mexico rhetoric has become largely normalized within the party as it gears up for next year’s elections. In Arizona in particular, it’s white-hot.

“We know they have terrorists coming across the border. The cartels own Arizona,” Republican senatorial hopeful Kari Lake declared at her campaign kickoff in October. This kind of language not only is reckless but also conceals an inconvenient truth: Arizona has become a major locus of the illicit gun trade arming Mexican cartels with weapons from the United States. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reveal that, between 2014 and 2018, almost 1 in 5 weapons found in crime scenes in Mexico and traced back to the United States originated in that state.

Last year, Mexico’s government retaliated, filing a lawsuit against five Arizona gun stores. “Their reckless and unlawful business practices — including straw sales, and bulk and repeat sales of military-style weapons — supply dangerous criminals in Mexico and the U.S.,” the lawsuit reads.

I recently traveled to Arizona to meet the owner of one of the gun stores targeted by Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration.

Plump, with spiky hair and small, lively eyes, Veerachart Danger Murphy has an effusive personality. He assured me that “Danger” was part of his name from birth. He called Ammo AZ, his business in north Phoenix, the “Apple Store of gun stores” because everything is on display for customers to interact with. The floor, designed for showcasing weapons, resembles Apple’s display tables, allowing customers to spend hours handling hundreds of firearms of different calibers. The yellow walls are adorned with rows of shotguns and semiautomatic rifles, including custom branded weapons. According to Murphy, Marvel-themed AR-style rifles have become “very popular.”

Murphy has a peculiar sense of humor. After the Mexican government’s lawsuit, he doctored up a fake mug shot of himself, with text overlaid: “Wanted Internationally — Arms dealer at large.” When we met, he was sporting a yellow T-shirt he had designed that read, “Ammo AZ vs Mexico.” He continued to wear it during our on-camera interview.

Despite the accusations and the tragic consequences of Arizona’s gun trade, Murphy said he sees no fault in his business practices. He dismissed the lawsuit as a political stunt, attributing it to former foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard’s electoral ambitions. “It’s a silly lawsuit!” he told me.

But the Mexican government’s lawsuit is no laughing matter. It suggests that armories including Ammo AZ are part of a gun-trafficking system that fuels violence in Mexico. The lawsuit alleges that the Arizona gun dealers in question “choose to sell guns using reckless and unlawful practices, despite the foreseeability — indeed, virtual certainty — that they are thereby helping cause deadly cartel violence across the border.”

The lawsuit contends that “cartels especially seek out” stores such as Murphy’s. “Starting in Nogales and traveling northwest on Interstate 19 and Interstate 10 to Phoenix,” it says, a potential smuggler “will travel about 180 miles and pass more than 1,100 gun dealers along the way before reaching Defendant Ammo AZ.” Mexico insists that each business named in the lawsuit “knows the ‘red flags’ that indicate that guns purchased at its stores are destined for the drug cartels in Mexico.” Instead of clamping down on straw, bulk and repeat purchases, the stores “double down on the exact practices that it knows supply the cartels with military-style arsenals.”

Murphy rejected the accusations. He told me potential buyers travel hundreds of miles to his store because of its unparalleled catalogue. “A lot of times, it’s because we’re the only ones that have it in this business,” he explained. “We actually have what they’re looking for.”

Throughout our conversation, Murphy contended that businesses such as his are guarantors of American civil liberties and the last line of defense in a potential conflict, internal or otherwise. He asserted that the gun trade’s dire effects in Mexico were not his responsibility or America’s. According to Murphy, Ammo- AZ conducts its business by the book, running background checks to prevent straw purchases and undergoing frequent ATF audits. He argued that it’s not the store’s fault if some weapons fall into the wrong hands, stating, “The solution? Mexico should do more at its border.”

In Arizona, I also interviewed Belén Olmedo, a lawyer in Phoenix who has represented defendants accused of making straw purchases on behalf of cartels. Most of the time, Olmedo said, her clients have no idea for whom they are buying the weapons, doing it for a few hundred dollars or to avoid threats or extortion. Olmedo said she agreed with the Mexican government’s argument. Armories, she said, are fully aware of the dangers of the illicit gun trade yet take no action. “They have an ethical and moral responsibility,” Olmedo asserted. “They sell the guns. They clearly see the [straw and bulk purchase] patterns. Why don’t they do anything?”

Olmedo’s question demands an answer.

So how to square the circle? In the coming months, the electorate will have plenty of opportunities to grapple with the opioid epidemic and the threat posed by Mexican criminal organizations. However, any debate will be woefully incomplete without an honest discussion of America’s gun-industrial complex and its role in arming the same cartels that send drugs across the border and have plunged parts of Mexico into lawless despair.

If the gun sellers themselves can’t yet muster the will to take moral and ethical responsibility to do more, can voters find ways to compel them to try harder?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/04/mexico-cartels-us-gun-sales/

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

Here’s some fucking madness for you.
And way to be “responsible.”

Opinion 

 We must find a way to stop U.S. guns from getting to Mexican cartels

Republicans’ incendiary anti-Mexico rhetoric has become largely normalized within the party as it gears up for next year’s elections. In Arizona in particular, it’s white-hot.

“We know they have terrorists coming across the border. The cartels own Arizona,” Republican senatorial hopeful Kari Lake declared at her campaign kickoff in October. This kind of language not only is reckless but also conceals an inconvenient truth: Arizona has become a major locus of the illicit gun trade arming Mexican cartels with weapons from the United States. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reveal that, between 2014 and 2018, almost 1 in 5 weapons found in crime scenes in Mexico and traced back to the United States originated in that state.

Last year, Mexico’s government retaliated, filing a lawsuit against five Arizona gun stores. “Their reckless and unlawful business practices — including straw sales, and bulk and repeat sales of military-style weapons — supply dangerous criminals in Mexico and the U.S.,” the lawsuit reads.

I recently traveled to Arizona to meet the owner of one of the gun stores targeted by Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration.

Plump, with spiky hair and small, lively eyes, Veerachart Danger Murphy has an effusive personality. He assured me that “Danger” was part of his name from birth. He called Ammo AZ, his business in north Phoenix, the “Apple Store of gun stores” because everything is on display for customers to interact with. The floor, designed for showcasing weapons, resembles Apple’s display tables, allowing customers to spend hours handling hundreds of firearms of different calibers. The yellow walls are adorned with rows of shotguns and semiautomatic rifles, including custom branded weapons. According to Murphy, Marvel-themed AR-style rifles have become “very popular.”

Murphy has a peculiar sense of humor. After the Mexican government’s lawsuit, he doctored up a fake mug shot of himself, with text overlaid: “Wanted Internationally — Arms dealer at large.” When we met, he was sporting a yellow T-shirt he had designed that read, “Ammo AZ vs Mexico.” He continued to wear it during our on-camera interview.

Despite the accusations and the tragic consequences of Arizona’s gun trade, Murphy said he sees no fault in his business practices. He dismissed the lawsuit as a political stunt, attributing it to former foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard’s electoral ambitions. “It’s a silly lawsuit!” he told me.

But the Mexican government’s lawsuit is no laughing matter. It suggests that armories including Ammo AZ are part of a gun-trafficking system that fuels violence in Mexico. The lawsuit alleges that the Arizona gun dealers in question “choose to sell guns using reckless and unlawful practices, despite the foreseeability — indeed, virtual certainty — that they are thereby helping cause deadly cartel violence across the border.”

The lawsuit contends that “cartels especially seek out” stores such as Murphy’s. “Starting in Nogales and traveling northwest on Interstate 19 and Interstate 10 to Phoenix,” it says, a potential smuggler “will travel about 180 miles and pass more than 1,100 gun dealers along the way before reaching Defendant Ammo AZ.” Mexico insists that each business named in the lawsuit “knows the ‘red flags’ that indicate that guns purchased at its stores are destined for the drug cartels in Mexico.” Instead of clamping down on straw, bulk and repeat purchases, the stores “double down on the exact practices that it knows supply the cartels with military-style arsenals.”

Murphy rejected the accusations. He told me potential buyers travel hundreds of miles to his store because of its unparalleled catalogue. “A lot of times, it’s because we’re the only ones that have it in this business,” he explained. “We actually have what they’re looking for.”

Throughout our conversation, Murphy contended that businesses such as his are guarantors of American civil liberties and the last line of defense in a potential conflict, internal or otherwise. He asserted that the gun trade’s dire effects in Mexico were not his responsibility or America’s. According to Murphy, Ammo- AZ conducts its business by the book, running background checks to prevent straw purchases and undergoing frequent ATF audits. He argued that it’s not the store’s fault if some weapons fall into the wrong hands, stating, “The solution? Mexico should do more at its border.”

In Arizona, I also interviewed Belén Olmedo, a lawyer in Phoenix who has represented defendants accused of making straw purchases on behalf of cartels. Most of the time, Olmedo said, her clients have no idea for whom they are buying the weapons, doing it for a few hundred dollars or to avoid threats or extortion. Olmedo said she agreed with the Mexican government’s argument. Armories, she said, are fully aware of the dangers of the illicit gun trade yet take no action. “They have an ethical and moral responsibility,” Olmedo asserted. “They sell the guns. They clearly see the [straw and bulk purchase] patterns. Why don’t they do anything?”

Olmedo’s question demands an answer.

So how to square the circle? In the coming months, the electorate will have plenty of opportunities to grapple with the opioid epidemic and the threat posed by Mexican criminal organizations. However, any debate will be woefully incomplete without an honest discussion of America’s gun-industrial complex and its role in arming the same cartels that send drugs across the border and have plunged parts of Mexico into lawless despair.

If the gun sellers themselves can’t yet muster the will to take moral and ethical responsibility to do more, can voters find ways to compel them to try harder?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/04/mexico-cartels-us-gun-sales/

F’n politicians are so damn hypocritical! Just like Cruz they want to ban Mexican immigrants from coming here but what is the 1st thing they do when going vacation they head South of the border! I’d be great to find out how many of them have time shares in Cabo or Cancun 

tbergs

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

There might be a difference in the definition but unless you are pointing the gun at someone or waiving it violently you aren't going to get charged with anything. 

You can't holster a rifle

I don't disagree. But even though you can't holster a rifle, you don't need to carry it in a way that is ready to shoot. Don,t need to hold it up against your shoulder with your finger on or near the trigger. If it takes pointing it at someone to be considered brandishing, then that law should be changed.

It's all semantics. Whether a handgun is holstered or a rifle is slung over a shoulder, it's a matter of a few seconds difference before you can shoot them. Doesn't really matter in public unless you engage with LE, then you better get that gun out of ready position. Once you allow open carry you've already determined there is no concern for Public Safety or the perception of it. It's all fucked up and the police know no prosecutor is ever going to bring charges for the difference unless they aim it an someone and then it'd be a stretch for them to get a conviction for terroristic threats or reckless behavior. On top of that, people like that rarely have a criminal record so the criminal justice system doesn't have time to run it through properly. Hell, the police here don't even investigate stolen vehicles anymore because they don't have the staff or resources. Not a chance they'd ever waste time on some clown who thinks he's Rambo. 

Gern Blansten

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Meanwhile, overnight in Tejas. There’s just way too many doors and not enough thoughts and prayers.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/us/texas-homicides-shootings-austin-bexar-county/index.html

tempo_n_groove

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

There might be a difference in the definition but unless you are pointing the gun at someone or waiving it violently you aren't going to get charged with anything. 

You can't holster a rifle

I don't disagree. But even though you can't holster a rifle, you don't need to carry it in a way that is ready to shoot. Don,t need to hold it up against your shoulder with your finger on or near the trigger. If it takes pointing it at someone to be considered brandishing, then that law should be changed.

It's all semantics. Whether a handgun is holstered or a rifle is slung over a shoulder, it's a matter of a few seconds difference before you can shoot them. Doesn't really matter in public unless you engage with LE, then you better get that gun out of ready position. Once you allow open carry you've already determined there is no concern for Public Safety or the perception of it. It's all fucked up and the police know no prosecutor is ever going to bring charges for the difference unless they aim it an someone and then it'd be a stretch for them to get a conviction for terroristic threats or reckless behavior. On top of that, people like that rarely have a criminal record so the criminal justice system doesn't have time to run it through properly. Hell, the police here don't even investigate stolen vehicles anymore because they don't have the staff or resources. Not a chance they'd ever waste time on some clown who thinks he's Rambo. 

Aint that grand?  Steal a car, no bother.  Rob a store of merchandise, no bother.

Gern Blansten

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

I always see these comments after a shooting. But the data doesn't back it up Mass shootings are not a "white" problem, but it is typically portrayed as one.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting of 3 fatalities or more, only 58% are from white shooters.

The number doesn't change by a lot using a different definition. 

mickeyrat

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

I always see these comments after a shooting. But the data doesn't back it up Mass shootings are not a "white" problem, but it is typically portrayed as one.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting of 3 fatalities or more, only 58% are from white shooters.

The number doesn't change by a lot using a different definition. 

parse out the gang affiliated shooting from that. what do those numbers look like then?

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

I always see these comments after a shooting. But the data doesn't back it up Mass shootings are not a "white" problem, but it is typically portrayed as one.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting of 3 fatalities or more, only 58% are from white shooters.

The number doesn't change by a lot using a different definition. 

parse out the gang affiliated shooting from that. what do those numbers look like then?

Moving the goal posts to fit a narrative then is what I'd call that.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

I always see these comments after a shooting. But the data doesn't back it up Mass shootings are not a "white" problem, but it is typically portrayed as one.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting of 3 fatalities or more, only 58% are from white shooters.

The number doesn't change by a lot using a different definition. 

parse out the gang affiliated shooting from that. what do those numbers look like then?

Moving the goal posts to fit a narrative then is what I'd call that.

to start, mace inferred that Gern was saying all mass shootings are white guys. he didnt say that.

2. breaking down the types of mass shootings are moving the goal posts? Given most of the white guy mass shootings used legal weapons or by those with access to same and most gang mass shootings use illegal guns , I think that becomes an important distinction between the two.

so please explain how you see it as moving the goal posts.

Merkin Baller

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

I always see these comments after a shooting. But the data doesn't back it up Mass shootings are not a "white" problem, but it is typically portrayed as one.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting of 3 fatalities or more, only 58% are from white shooters.

The number doesn't change by a lot using a different definition. 

According to that link, whites outnumber the next leading group by a margin > 3 - 1. 

mace1229

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/unlv-shooting-las-vegas-live-updates-rcna128402?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1x7Ig71pPFKrdZQsvXYvzca7q2SGGW1tefGV2lmE8ATbq8vLR3Vx9YziQ&_branch_match_id=918120080896578158&_branch_referrer=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXz0tKzkstL9ZLLCjQy8nMy9Y3dzJPLsy19MlyS7JPS0rOyUyx9Sx3DDKsMPdMNzcsCHDzLkqJCiwui4gsq0pONC80CnZ3DzcsSU1zDzPKyXW1cAxJKrQo8wkyDquwjKzKDAQAAWzePGkAAAA=

Wednesday in murikkka..

Another white guy who had been "wronged" who takes it out on society. Pathetic.

I always see these comments after a shooting. But the data doesn't back it up Mass shootings are not a "white" problem, but it is typically portrayed as one.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Using the FBI definition of a mass shooting of 3 fatalities or more, only 58% are from white shooters.

The number doesn't change by a lot using a different definition. 

parse out the gang affiliated shooting from that. what do those numbers look like then?

SO basically, don't include minorities in the data and its all whites?