Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
You read what you wanted to read in PJSoul’s post. Literally all she commented on was that this was interesting and an anomaly because it was a female shooter, which differs from the norm. The “... in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it” is just your words. To say that because female shooters are so few compared to male shooters and therefore can’t be used meaningfully in homicide statistics is just plain bullshit.
It was more of a response to drawing conclusions such as were in your snarky post on how to avert an attack. I never said that it should not be used in homicide stats...those were your words, not mine. You read what you want to and create “just plain bullshit”. My point was that there was probably very little that could have averted this attack, plain and simple.
“...would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it”. To me, that very clearly reads as data which should not be seen as a valid data point (aka an outlier).
You’re right, we should now just conclude that all vegan women are threats now... That would be drawing major conclusions, so no we should not. I don’t know how more elementary to spell this out for you, you obviously are just trying to demonize and stir shit up.
he's obviously saying you can't exclude data just because it doesn't fit your criteria. it's all criteria.
the fact that she is a woman makes zero difference as to the need to investigate the cause of this, as an individual event and a national crisis.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
So I saw this "meme" posted yesterday on one of my friend's instagram page in response to the Youtube shooting:
My response to this is: "When your immediate reaction is to point out what "team" the shooter was on and you still refuse to admit we have a problem."
I can't see the meme you posted at work, but I'm assuming it has something to do with most shooters apparently being democrats/liberals? if so, let's be honest here....if the shoe was on the other foot.....you don't think there would be "all mass shooters are republicans!" memes swirling the interwebs and constantly used as talking points against the gun lobby?
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
So I saw this "meme" posted yesterday on one of my friend's instagram page in response to the Youtube shooting:
My response to this is: "When your immediate reaction is to point out what "team" the shooter was on and you still refuse to admit we have a problem."
I can't see the meme you posted at work, but I'm assuming it has something to do with most shooters apparently being democrats/liberals? if so, let's be honest here....if the shoe was on the other foot.....you don't think there would be "all mass shooters are republicans!" memes swirling the interwebs and constantly used as talking points against the gun lobby?
Meme is a fuzzy picture of a kid's face with the caption "When the shooter is female, muslim, vegan, AND shot people in an area with strict gun laws so you can't blame the NRA, republicans, or white males for the shooting."
Still dont know why being vegan matters and why it's been mentioned a million times
I guess because some people tend to equate veganism with assumed pacifism, and this case seems to contradict that?? Or maybe because some other people tend to equate veganism with a brand of fanaticism? Or both?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I’d be curious to see how this actually gets enforced. How do they know who has one and who does not?
Registrations? Because, as we all know, that is how President Obama will be able to send in his U.N. troops to find you and take away your guns
That’s just the thing, there are no mandated registrations...and hearing about this town trying to do this only validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry.
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Something seriously wrong with ‘murica. Check the photo from Missouri. How’s that guy gonna get the jump on the bad guy when his shootin’ Hand is holding the umbrella? Just another “responsible” gun owner, I reckon?
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...
If you don’t think Trump has something to do with the current situation regarding guns and gun laws, then I’m not really sure what to tell you.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...
If you don’t think Trump has something to do with the current situation regarding guns and gun laws, then I’m not really sure what to tell you.
Lol, then maybe we should just merge the two threads? He didn’t mention anything about Trump’s effect on gun laws in the comment, but I digress.
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...
That your vote in Texas has no bearing on a gun control measure vote in Illinois just like Mexico paying for the wall has no bearing on border security. I wouldn’t have a problem trading Texas for a wall.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
By that logic, no matter what anyone does to improve gun control validates the concerns of people that do not support a registry or any other gun control, lol. Yeah, people know that... I think their intention is to ignore those concerns because they run counter to their cause. The only real goal is to get the most people on one side or another so that the politicians who support their cause win elections.
Hey, you convinced me, I will not vote for a candidate that supports a registry...or any other form of gun control. Big surprise, I know, lol
It’s okay, Team Trump Treason is going to trade Texas to Mexico for building the wall. They have all the labor anyway.
WTF does that have to do with this thread? Take your Trump obsession back to the Trump thread...
That your vote in Texas has no bearing on a gun control measure vote in Illinois just like Mexico paying for the wall has no bearing on border security. I wouldn’t have a problem trading Texas for a wall.
I’m cool with that because I do not want an Illinois vote having any bearing on gun control measures in TX. I would trade Illinois for a pop tart, lol. Can we build a wall around Chiraq instead?
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
Congrats on CNN for another 100% misleading and completely untrue title. I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all. Assault weapons are not banned. They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Page 86 of the Town of Deerfield’s town council minutes speak to it being unlawful to possess, keep, store or manufacture assault weapons within the town of Deerfield and that this section does not apply for the transportation of assault weapons. Possession of a fully functioning assault weapon will have you in violation of the ordinance. Transporting through, out or in the town limits in a non-functional state as defined will not. The headline is not misleading in the least.
After this ban the town of deerfield should be the safest town in america. I guess we will wait and see.
and with all the guns in Chicago that should be the safest city in America. alas it's not. damn those irresponsible gun owners.
Comments
the fact that she is a woman makes zero difference as to the need to investigate the cause of this, as an individual event and a national crisis.
My response to this is:
"When your immediate reaction is to point out what "team" the shooter was on and you still refuse to admit we have a problem."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Because, as we all know, that is how President Obama will be able to send in his U.N. troops to find you and take away your guns
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/
Im not sure I agree with the methodology of the survey as it seems to be a small sample size given the number of guns in circulation.
yee haw!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I didn't believe that to be true, so I read the article. If it was true there'd be costly lawsuits before it was ever enforced. And guess what, it isn't true at all.
Assault weapons are not banned.
They are 100% legal to own in that city/village. It just states that they must be "broken down in a non-functioning state," or "unloaded and enclosed in a case" among a few of the options if you do decide to own one.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
usa today reports differently.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
As for withstanding legal challenges, it’s modeled in a previous law that withstood legal challenges. Link to your source of what you claim is they just have to be broken down and stored?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/us/deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN040518deerfield-illinois-assault-weapon-ban-trnd0159PMVODtop
Also states as long as the assault weapon is "not immediately accessible to any person." Which would include in a gun safe. California requires all guns to be in a gun safe when children are in the home. This law seems to be a total dud compared to the heading.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©