Another shooting

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This I agree with this ... are you in favor of censoring Hollywood?

Censoring? No. Educating yes.

[jesmu84]

We didn't significantly decrease any public health crisis overnight. Just look at auto accident fatalities

[mu-rara]

It has a far higher rate of success than doing nothing.

You and your cronies spin your wheels like crazy taking action action action.  Please.   Propose a gun law that will actually accomplish something.   You guys reward activity and don't give a darn about results.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Every little bit helps. The goal isn't to fix everything tomorrow. The goal is to change the culture so future generations don't have to deal with the same level of violence that we do now.

Well said.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Lie is a strong word.  Look at the chart again, before 2012 it was less than 20 a year, save the once every few years incident Only five times in the 30 years between 1982 and 2012 was it more than 20 in a year. and in 13 of these years, it was one or zero shootings for the year.  Still more people are killed struck by lighting than mass shootings.

---

What did the mentally unstable do to kill people in the 1980s?  Serial killings, see the chart below.  But as serial killings declined, mass shootings are on the rise.  (MU is very familiar with serial killers as Dahmer was at 24th and State in the 1980s).  Interesting that the peak of serial killings saw the same number of victims as mass shootings now.

So how do we know that this mass shooting epidemic is the next phase, after serial killings, as the mentally unstable move on to some other way in a few years?

If this has merit, then gun control is not only ineffective but counter-productive.

https://www.allanalytics.com/author.asp?section_id=3619&doc_id=278214


Was guns the issue with serial killings?  Less than half were by gun.  So the mentally unstable found a way to do it without a gun, and probably will again.

Incomplete data, especially when you go back to the 1930s. It doesn't include the proliferation of weapons, which is a key piece of information.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

You and your cronies spin your wheels like crazy taking action action action.  Please.   Propose a gun law that will actually accomplish something.   You guys reward activity and don't give a darn about results.

This is dumb. How do you know that the multitude of proposals in this thread won't accomplish anything?  You don't because politicians don't have the backbone to put any of them into motion.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Censoring? No. Educating yes.

Educating in what sense? 

Personally, I don't believe violent movies, music, or video games have much impact, if any, on all of this.

I enjoy each one of those and I don't have any desire to own a gun. That's a simplification but on a larger scale I don't think there's a connection. (I also realize you're not stating that there is).

[Tugg Speedman]

Incomplete data, especially when you go back to the 1930s. It doesn't include the proliferation of weapons, which is a key piece of information.

Read it again, there is no proliferation of weapons!  If anything, we are less armed now than the 1930s or earlier.  Grenades were legal before 1930!

I have written this about a hundred times and non-gun owners either don't want to believe it or do not understand ... the semi-automatic weapon was invented in the 1880s.  The majority of guns are semi-automatic and have been for almost a hundred years.  In the 1920s, as in about a 100 years ago, gangsters used the Thompson submachine gun (aka Tommy Gun).  That gun was at least as lethal, and probably more lethal (as it was fully automatic) than the AR-15 today.

So, let's put a rest to this idea that there is some breed of new "super-gun" is behind this rise in mass shootings.  Armor-Lite (or "AR) invented the AR-15 about 65 years ago.  Why did we see an epidemic of the mass shooting the first 50 years after the AR-15 was invented?

The availability of guns is largely unchanged for 140 years.  But mass-shooting is a relatively new thing (despite TAMU protests).

So, again, why now?  What changed from 2011 or earlier?  Answer that and we can craft a real solution.

[Tugg Speedman]

This is dumb. How do you know that the multitude of proposals in this thread won't accomplish anything?  You don't because politicians don't have the backbone to put any of them into motion.

Because Sultan is proposing stuff that is already existing laws

Tamu wants stuff that has been tried and failed (like longer waiting periods).

This is what makes these threads so interesting.  Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant about guns and prefer primal screams of "do something" and when someone proposes something their primal scream does not agree with, instead of a reasoned argument, they are reduced to attacks and insults.

Write this large and you have the entire country. 

So, Jockey and Sultan, the problem is you blaming me and other gun owners as having "blood our hands."  The reality is you would rather show your moral superiority over "mouth-breathing" gun owners than actually fix the problem.  Becuase, if you really wanted to fix this problem, you would take seriously ideas you disagree with.

No one wants this problem fixed more than gun owners so the ignorant, like you guys, stop attacking us.

[Lennys Tap]

Personally, I don't believe violent movies, music, or video games have much impact, if any, on all of this.

I enjoy each one of those and I don't have any desire to own a gun. That's a simplification but on a larger scale I don't think there's a connection. (I also realize you're not stating that there is).

Simplification? Smoking doesn't give lots of people cancer. Can those who avoid it conclude that it's safe?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Read it again, there is no proliferation of weapons!  If anything, we are less armed now than the 1930s or earlier.  Grenades were legal before 1930!

I have written this about a hundred times and non-gun owners either don't want to believe it or do not understand ... the semi-automatic weapon was invented in the 1880s.  The majority of guns are semi-automatic and have been for almost a hundred years.  In the 1920s, as in about a 100 years ago, gangsters used the Thompson submachine gun (aka Tommy Gun).  That gun was at least as lethal, and probably more lethal (as it was fully automatic) than the AR-15 today.

So, let's put a rest to this idea that there is some breed of new "super-gun" is behind this rise in mass shootings.  Armor-Lite (or "AR) invented the AR-15 about 65 years ago.  Why did we see an epidemic of the mass shooting the first 50 years after the AR-15 was invented?

The availability of guns is largely unchanged for 140 years.  But mass-shooting is a relatively new thing (despite TAMU protests).

So, again, why now?  What changed from 2011 or earlier?  Answer that and we can craft a real solution.

I stopped reading when you used the legality of grenades as a talking point.

[Tugg Speedman]

I stopped reading when you used the legality of grenades as a talking point.

Exactly my point, you are completely ignorant about the history of weaponry in the public hands and want to stay that way so you can make up things and then call anyone that disagrees with you an idiot.

Exactly the problem with the larger gun debate.

[Jockey]

Do we know that Chica and Heisy aren't the same person?

Same MO.

1. Carpet bomb threads with every argumentative thought in their heads until they drive everyone away. Then disappear for a while.

2. Change names often thinking they are outsmarting all of us dummies here.

3. Are encouraged by the two or three who agree with their politics into believing they are even smarter yet.

[Hards Alumni]

Do we know that Chica and Heisy aren't the same person?

Same MO.

1. Carpet bomb threads with every argumentative thought in their heads until they drive everyone away. Then disappear for a while.

2. Change names often thinking they are outsmarting all of us dummies here.

3. Are encouraged by the two or three who agree with their politics into believing they are even smarter yet.

Birds of a feather, but certainly not the same bird.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Exactly my point, you are completely ignorant about the history of weaponry in the public hands and want to stay that way so you can make up things and then call anyone that disagrees with you an idiot.

Exactly the problem with the larger gun debate.

I've read enough of your ludicrous posts to know when not to waste my time. Your repeated insistence that what was happening in the 1930s has a strong correlation to what is happening 80-90 years later tells me all I need to know.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Heisy, you are acting like gun ownership exists in a vacuum. No one is arguing that that semi-autos haven't existed for decades. But we as a country have changed over the decades. For one, we are no longer a country where a majority of our population lives in spread out rural areas. For another, the proliferation of weapons has increased dramatically. Now you sidestepped this by saying "but you could own grenades!" But NPR estimates that since 1968, the guns per capita in the USA has doubled. For another, our culture increasingly glorifies guns and violence. For another, the 24 hour news cycle increases our awareness of these events and unfortunately adds to the immortalization of those who commit these acts of violence. Mental health concerns are on the rise.

These are just off the top of my head. I don't care if there weren't as many mass shootings in 1930. There have been way too many of them in the past 30 years. And we are the only country experiencing this. To throw up our hands and say "whoops, nothing to be done" is lazy and unethical.

[MU82]

Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant about guns and prefer primal screams of "do something" and when someone proposes something their primal scream does not agree with, instead of a reasoned argument, they are reduced to attacks and insults.

Write this large and you have the entire country. 

So, Jockey and Sultan, the problem is you blaming me and other gun owners as having "blood our hands."  The reality is you would rather show your moral superiority over "mouth-breathing" gun owners than actually fix the problem.  Becuase, if you really wanted to fix this problem, you would take seriously ideas you disagree with.

No one wants this problem fixed more than gun owners so the ignorant, like you guys, stop attacking us.

The only idea I have seen you propose, Mr. NRA, is "more good guys with guns."

What about bigly extra money to deal with mental-health issues? After all, it's a mental-health problem, right?

>>Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant>>

This is you to a T, Smuggles. Nobody is as smart as you. Nobody. Well, maybe one, your orange-hued hero. But otherwise, nobody. (Nice grammar, BTW.)

[Vander Blue Man Group]

The only idea I have seen you propose, Mr. NRA, is "more good guys with guns."

What about bigly extra money to deal with mental-health issues? After all, it's a mental-health problem, right?

>>Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant>>

This is you to a T, Smuggles. Nobody is as smart as you. Nobody. Well, maybe one, your orange-hued hero. But otherwise, nobody. (Nice grammar, BTW.)

Me after repeatedly listening to logic involving good guys with guns, grenades, and 1930s weapons/mass shooting statistics:

[TSmith34, Inc.]

What changed?  Hint:  It is not the availability of semi-automatic guns, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they have been in society for 140 years.  They have numbered in the hundreds of millions for decades.

Oh, a few things have changed:  guns, guns, and moar gunz

[Tugg Speedman]

Oh, a few things have changed:  guns, guns, and moar gunz

So what is the proper amount of guns that the country should have?  200 million?  250 million?  What is the magic level that it becomes too much?

Again, TAMU can protest all he wants but when we had 200 to 250 million guns in the coutnry in the 1980s mas shooting was not a problem ... we averaged about 1.5 a year with less than 20 killed/year.  Now we have about 120 killed from mass shootings a year, and it started spiking in the last five years.

This is why I said their is not a profilaterion of weapons.  We have had semi-automatic military style weapons in society for a century.  We have worse prior to the 1930s.  Their was not shortage of these weapons for decades.  And for decades we did not have these shootings.  The problem is not avaialbility.

So, I await your made up number about what the maximum number of guns the country should have.  Or, do you have the courage to speak what your mind ... and say it is zero?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Heisey, I said mass shootings are not new to the last 5 years but dramatically increased in the last five years. And if you think 1.5 mass shootings a year is not a problem,  that's a problem.

I don't know how many guns is appropriate.  But since we are number one in guns per capita and our number is nearly double the country in second it's probably less than we currently have.

[#TheThing]

You are giving the NRA a bad name.  None of these killers were members of the NRA.  The organization supports our rights, guaranteed by the Constitution which too many want to erode. 

Politico Magazine claims mass shootings are more deadly, not more frequent.  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678

What has changed in the last 5 to 10 years?

Social media and the ability to go out in a blaze of glory
Smart phones and the voyeresque abilities that go with them
Media coverage. 24 hour news dedicated to providing news to fit news bias.  General news doesn't exist anymore, it is targeted. See blaze of glory above.
Population growth
Prisoner releases.  States have released 1000's of prisoners for what they deemed low level crimes due to overcrowding and crime has gone up in many of these states as a result

[#TheThing]

Fine. It was washed over in the past (as lots of issues have been before and will be in the future).

So do the right thing today. With everyone. Everywhere. Regardless of political party or position or power or wealth.

Agree?

Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.

Was it washed over, or was it left out and not covered on purpose?  Media protecting their own?  How many stories do we in the general public never get to read about because the media chooses not to report it? Their power is unfettered and they can pick and choose who to lay waste to.

The Lion of the Senate, the great Ted Kennedy.   He was built up as a Mt. Rushmore of the left, but this is the kind of stuff that he was doing and dismissed as boys being boys.  The Waitress Sandwich with Chris Dodd, published in GQ because the normal mainstream media didn't want to bother with it.:

Brasserie I: In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate:

It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.

Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had "three or four" cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, "what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodd's lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table 'cause the table was knocked over—not completely, but just on Senator Dodd's lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kennedy jumped off…and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room."

From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around.

According to Loh, Kennedy "was sort of leaning" on Gaviglio, "not really straddling but sort of off-balance so it was like he might have accidentally fallen…He was partially on and off…pushing himself off her to get up." Dodd, she adds, "said 'It's not my fault.' " Kennedy said something similar and added, jokingly, "Makes you wonder about the leaders of this country."

Giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible he did not intend an assault but meant to be funny, in a repulsive, boozehead way. Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault.

Brasserie II: On September 25, 1987, Kennedy and a young blonde woman—identified by several sources as a congressional lobbyist—allegedly got carried away at a wine-fueled lunch in a private room upstairs and succumbed to the temptations of the carpet, where they were surprised in a state of semi-undress and wholehearted passion by waitress Frauke Morgan. The room, located next to the restrooms, is secured only by a flimsy accordion door, which could not be fully closed. Morgan declined to be interviewed for this story or to comment on or refute the accounts of other sources.

However, waitress Virginia Hurt, who says Morgan described the scene to her shortly after witnessing it, recalls, "He was on the floor with his pants down on top of the woman, and he saw her and she just kind of backed away and closed the door. The girl didn't see Frauke. So Frauke went downstairs and told the manager and [another waitress] overheard."

A waitress to whom Morgan spoke just after the incident says, "She told me…she went up to offer them coffee and when she opened the door…there they were on the floor." Morgan said explicitly, the other waitress goes on, that Kennedy had his pants down and his date "had her dress up," and the two " 'were screwing on the floor.' "

Says another waitress to whom Morgan immediately related the episode, "She said she had walked in to ask them if they needed anything else before she gave them the check, and she just sort of found Senator Kennedy on top of this [woman] on the floor and they were sort of half under the table and half out."

A copy of La Brasserie's reservation list for that day shows that a luncheon table for two in the back room was reserved for Kennedy. A copy of the check, signed "Edward M. Kennedy," shows he was billed for two bottles of Chardonnay.

[GGGG]

Hmmmm...I wonder who this guy "TYME Machine" is? 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Hmmmm...I wonder who this guy "TYME Machine" is?

Quite a mystery.  Apparently he did earn another ban after he defended a pedophile, but that isn't going to stop him from posting.