“While it may be intuitive that a 14-year-old has no legitimate purpose, it doesn’t actually mean that they’re going to harm someone. We don’t know that yet,” said Rep. Tony Lovasco, a Republican from the St. Louis suburb of O’Fallon. “Generally speaking, we don’t charge people with crimes because we think they’re going to hurt someone.”
From the above article and as Lawbeef said what else is there to say?
The gun itself incites to deeds of violence.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:28 pm
by Unagi
If someone hands you a hammer - you start looking for nails to drive.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:44 pm
by Victoria Raverna
Isn't that logic can be used to stop any restriction or regulation? Why you need driver's license to drive? Just because someone doesn't have a driver's license doesn't mean he/she is going to hurt someone driving a car.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:53 pm
by Punisher
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:44 pm
Isn't that logic can be used to stop any restriction or regulation? Why you need driver's license to drive? Just because someone doesn't have a driver's license doesn't mean he/she is going to hurt someone driving a car.
I'd argue that a DL doesn't actually do anything to stop someone hurting someone while driving.
ESPECIALLY the renewals. Maybe the initial one helps a bit since you have to at least pass a test but renewals are purely to make money and don't do anything to help at all.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:56 pm
by Pyperkub
Punisher wrote:
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:44 pm
Isn't that logic can be used to stop any restriction or regulation? Why you need driver's license to drive? Just because someone doesn't have a driver's license doesn't mean he/she is going to hurt someone driving a car.
I'd argue that a DL doesn't actually do anything to stop someone hurting someone while driving.
ESPECIALLY the renewals. Maybe the initial one helps a bit since you have to at least pass a test but renewals are purely to make money and don't do anything to help at all.
Also, disabilities such as age or infirmity/injury, or just being a shitty driver and losing your license.
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:44 pm
Isn't that logic can be used to stop any restriction or regulation? Why you need driver's license to drive? Just because someone doesn't have a driver's license doesn't mean he/she is going to hurt someone driving a car.
I'd argue that a DL doesn't actually do anything to stop someone hurting someone while driving.
ESPECIALLY the renewals. Maybe the initial one helps a bit since you have to at least pass a test but renewals are purely to make money and don't do anything to help at all.
Also, disabilities such as age or infirmity/injury, or just being a shitty driver and losing your license.
Except that for age or infirmity it is rare to lose your license. I haven't driven since my medical adventure over 2 years ago but still have a valid license. I personally think I'm gine to drive mow. Definitely not at first, but now? Yes. My wife won't let me until I get special testing which is in progress but I do think I'll pass fine. I probably won't attempt long distances any time soon, just small food and medicine runs but I never actually lost my license. Even when I was fully paralyzed.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:08 pm
by YellowKing
Victoria Raverna wrote:Isn't that logic can be used to stop any restriction or regulation? Why you need driver's license to drive? Just because someone doesn't have a driver's license doesn't mean he/she is going to hurt someone driving a car.
The gun nuts use the "cars kill people, why don't we ban cars" argument a lot, but it's one of the easiest to refute. To drive a car you must be licensed, you must pass both a written exam and driving test, you must be insured, and your car must be inspected annually, And there are hundreds of laws regarding the use of the vehicle and what can and cannot be done legally while behind the wheel.
If the pro-gun folks want the same standards applied to guns, I'm all for it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 4:17 pm
by Unagi
Yes, a system designed around a vigilant whitelist strategy doesn't need to invoke a blacklist strategy as well.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 6:19 pm
by Isgrimnur
Punisher wrote:I personally think I'm gine to drive mow. Definitely not at first, but now? Yes. My wife won't let me until I get special testing which is in progress but I do think I'll pass fine.
Just school her on your driving game of choice. Mario Kart, Forza, or Gran Turismo come to mind. Perhaps some Dirt or Grid to change things up.
Punisher wrote:I personally think I'm gine to drive mow. Definitely not at first, but now? Yes. My wife won't let me until I get special testing which is in progress but I do think I'll pass fine.
Just school her on your driving game of choice. Mario Kart, Forza, or Gran Turismo come to mind. Perhaps some Dirt or Grid to change things up.
I actually have a wheel setup and a driving sim. Something that is supposed to help take driving tests.
I do fine for the most part except for when i have to look to the side. Those controls are quirky.
I plan to set it up with my vr headset to make looking more natural.
Punisher wrote:I personally think I'm gine to drive mow. Definitely not at first, but now? Yes. My wife won't let me until I get special testing which is in progress but I do think I'll pass fine.
Just school her on your driving game of choice. Mario Kart, Forza, or Gran Turismo come to mind. Perhaps some Dirt or Grid to change things up.
I actually have a wheel setup and a driving sim. Something that is supposed to help take driving tests.
I do fine for the most part except for when i have to look to the side. Those controls are quirky.
I plan to set it up with my vr headset to make looking more natural.
Punisher wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:59 pm
I'm confused.
It says she gave him the gun but then she blames her husband for not securing it properly.
If it was given to him then why is the husband responsible for securing it?
Short version: She was trying to throw her husband under the bus to protect herself from jail time.
The fact that she was willing to do that to family tells me all I need to know about her quality as a parent.
Jurors found James Crumbley guilty on all four counts of involuntary manslaughter over his teenage son's mass shooting at Michigan's Oxford High School in November 2021.
...
Prosecutors maintained throughout James Crumbley's trial that he should have reasonably foreseen that his son was troubled and primed for violence.
...
A different side of Crumbley emerged midway through the trial, when his communications from jail were severely restricted.
Law enforcement officials confirmed that Crumbley had made threats while incarcerated over a jailhouse phone and in an electronic message.
Jurors never saw that view of Crumbley and, unlike his wife a month earlier, James Crumbley never took the stand in his own defense.
James and Jennifer Crumbley will be sentenced early next month.
The suspect and the three victims were all sixth-graders, the police said in a statement.
"The injuries of both victims who were taken to the hospital are very serious," said Criminal Commissioner Marko Sarkka.
...
Police said the motive was not clear. The handgun's permit belonged to a relative of the suspect, they said.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:30 pm
by Victoria Raverna
How many school shooting so far in this year? Are they catching up with US?
Maybe a total ban of all guns is the only solution that can stop school shooting?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 3:55 pm
by Blackhawk
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:30 pm
How many school shooting so far in this year? Are they catching up with US?
Maybe a total ban of all guns is the only solution that can stop school shooting?
It isn't a solution if it isn't possible.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:32 pm
by YellowKing
There are very simple ways to prevent a large number of school shootings and still give every gun owner the ability to enjoy their hobby, but we have one political party in the United States that refuses to even entertain the idea. And so kids will continue to die. This isn't a problem on the scale of climate change or solving world hunger. It's super easy, barely an inconvenience. And they still won't do it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:40 pm
by LawBeefaroni
If we solved it, they'd lose one of their best mobilization tools and their strongest single issue vote.
Winning on abortion hasn't worked out too well and the migrant thing isn't quite there yet.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 7:44 pm
by Victoria Raverna
So maybe you need more school shootings at the schools where most GOP politician's children or grandchildren attend. That'll make it possible to do something about it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:48 pm
by hepcat
No, we don’t need more death just for a publicity stunt.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 10:56 pm
by Alefroth
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 7:44 pm
So maybe you need more school shootings at the schools where most GOP politician's children or grandchildren attend. That'll make it possible to do something about it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:14 pm
by Smoove_B
I mean, above and beyond the grossness of thinking that would somehow help, we had an active shooter at a Congressional baseball game for charity where he was actively targeting Republicans and nothing changed.
Well, maybe that's not true. I'm sure more guns were injected into the hands of Americans as a result.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 12:08 am
by Blackhawk
These peoples' priorities start with personal power and end with personal wealth (although some have their priorities backwards.)
Worst case for them, a few kids belonging to a couple of Republican members of Congress get killed. They all make speeches, absurd 'solutions' are suggested (arm janitors, sandbags in hallways, whatever), and they go on with their lives. If one or two directly impacted members of Congress speak up, their unaffected colleagues blow their votes into nothingness, and they're out of office in the next election for daring to try. Most likely? They keep their mouths shut, and if they truly object, they vote 'present' a time or two.
Unless we think that Congresswoman A is going to give up his position and cash feed just because Congressman W's child was killed.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 7:24 pm
by LawBeefaroni
They'll just do what they do for themselves. Armed guards & private clubs [schools].
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:08 pm
by Punisher
While I don't agree with method, I think I do understand the point she is trying to make.
Something bad needs to happen directly or almost directly to certain politicians in order for them to change their policies.
I do wonder how strong their convictions would be if something did happen.
Would they hold to their convictions regardless of what happened or would it actually get them to see the other side.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:27 pm
by Blackhawk
Punisher wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:08 pm
While I don't agree with method, I think I do understand the point she is trying to make.
Something bad needs to happen directly or almost directly to certain politicians in order for them to change their policies.
I do wonder how strong their convictions would be if something did happen.
Would they hold to their convictions regardless of what happened or would it actually get them to see the other side.
Maybe, but their convictions as individuals are what don't matter. The party as a whole toes the line, and is likely to punish/remove anyone who doesn't. And if they don't, the voters probably will. They might be decisive in getting something through if the rest move fast enough to make it happen before the rest of the Rs find a counter, but they'd be just as likely to delay to buy time to 'talk sense' into those members.
And, for what it's worth, most already see the other side, and clearly. They just benefit more from the side they're on. And that's the real trick - it's only a true 'conviction' for a few of them. Most see it as a payday, and a big one.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:51 pm
by Punisher
Fair enough.i guess I just dont understand politics and their reasoning.
Im probably naive in expecting more from them.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:53 pm
by Victoria Raverna
Then I guess there is no hope?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:20 am
by Unagi
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:53 pm
Then I guess there is no hope?
Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 11:53 pm
Then I guess there is no hope?
bait
?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:00 am
by Unagi
Do you think there is no hope and no one should try?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:03 am
by YellowKing
I think there's always hope, but we're talking about a country that was just fine with letting 1000+ people a day die from Covid. Gun deaths are a tiny fraction of Covid deaths, and if that wasn't enough to get us to change our behavior, then I think that hope is slim.
We're a country of incredibly self-centered individuals. If it's not impacting us directly, then it's completely irrelevant.
That's another reason why, VR, you get so upset at US attitudes towards what's happening in Israel. The sad truth is that most people over here simply don't give a shit. They worry about whether their gas is under $4 a gallon, not dead babies in a country thousands of miles away.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 10:18 am
by Isgrimnur
Or the next county over.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 12:49 pm
by Alefroth
I don't know why people are acting like Republicans aren't affected by shootings now. The worst shooting in the U.S. was at a country music concert.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 7:18 pm
by Victoria Raverna
Not a mass shooting but still a shooting:
An Uber driver got killed by a scam victim.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 7:26 pm
by LawBeefaroni
Don't worry, Uber banned the person who ordered the ride and presumably set the whole thing up.
FWIW this is absolutely an unjustifiable shooting. He'll probably say something about his state of mind due to the scam calls but if something like that causes you to go to the gun, you shouldn't have one.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2024 8:03 pm
by Alefroth
Not just go to the gun, but use it when she was trying to leave.
When Hall arrived at the home and approached the front door, Brock confronted her with a gun and asked her who she was working for, Shultz said. He took her cellphone and prevented her from getting in her vehicle and driving away.
“When she tried to get away, he shot her once, then there was more exchange between them," Shultz said. "Mr. Brock was at some point injured to his head, and he shot Ms. Hall a second time. There was more conversation, and then he shot her a third time. Only after he shot her a third time did he then make contact with authorities to report the incident."
Hall did not threaten Brock, have a weapon or assault him, according to the sheriff's office and a complaint filed in Clark County Municipal Court. She was taken to a hospital where she died from her injuries, according to the complaint.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 12:34 am
by Punisher
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 7:26 pm
Don't worry, Uber banned the person who ordered the ride and presumably set the whole thing up.
FWIW this is absolutely an unjustifiable shooting. He'll probably say something about his state of mind due to the scam calls but if something like that causes you to go to the gun, you shouldn't have one.
While I'm all for 2a, i agree. Maybe if it was a couple of obvious thugs actually threatening him it'd be different but that women walks almost as bad as I did. She didn't have a weapon and wasn't a threat.
Not to mention the fact that he told her to leave and then shot her for trying to leave.
As short as it may be for him, he deserves life in prision.
