Racially motivated murder at Tops

[KDIGGZ]

4 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

Part of the problem is this particular dig in referring to “they” taking a mile. That’s fear mongering to me. 
 

I would focus on the mental health too. I don’t have all the answers, but it saddens me that we still refuse to limit access for someone making EXPLICIT threats. 

 

Not worth it we’ll just go around. Even mentioning the conversation gets someone labeled as an individual giving up all to the government or wanting to seize peoples guns. I’m not thinking in these absolutes as much as people want to paint everyone in a box these days.
 

 

"They" meaning the current administration who has already stated they want certain guns banned and they have placed Beto O'Rourke at the head of said movement purposely because that is their stated goal.

 

To be more specific, they want to ban "assault weapons." There's no such thing as an assault weapon. A stapler can be an assault weapon if you assault somebody with it. By placing a ban on assault weapons they can classify anything they want as an assault weapon thus banning all guns. They want to set that legal precedent which then gives them full autonomy to do as they please and I think both sides can agree that a strong government is what the forefathers were fighting to get away from and they didn't want future generations to end up in the same spot.

 

Also, similarly, a limit to the number of rounds in the same regard gives a legal precedent to limit the rounds to whatever they deem fit. Is 1 round enough? Like the old school muskets? What if you are being attacked by 2 people? Can you call a timeout? These scenarios seem silly until you are in them.

 

Common sense laws are a good idea but there are actors in our government who would gladly assume as much power as citizens are willing to give up and that's not a good situation for anybody. This is a very tragic situation and I wish there was an obvious answer to it. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.

[Rockpile233]

12 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

"They" meaning the current administration who has already stated they want certain guns banned and they have placed Beto O'Rourke at the head of said movement purposely because that is their stated goal.

 

To be more specific, they want to ban "assault weapons." There's no such thing as an assault weapon. A stapler can be an assault weapon if you assault somebody with it. By placing a ban on assault weapons they can classify anything they want as an assault weapon thus banning all guns. They want to set that legal precedent which then gives them full autonomy to do as they please and I think both sides can agree that a strong government is what the forefathers were fighting to get away from and they didn't want future generations to end up in the same spot.

 

Also, similarly, a limit to the number of rounds in the same regard gives a legal precedent to limit the rounds to whatever they deem fit. Is 1 round enough? Like the old school muskets? What if you are being attacked by 2 people? Can you call a timeout? These scenarios seem silly until you are in them.

 

Common sense laws are a good idea but there are actors in our government who would gladly assume as much power as citizens are willing to give up and that's not a good situation for anybody. This is a very tragic situation and I wish there was an obvious answer to it. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.

You keep slamming the door. I promise I agree there are bad actors leading people astray, but cut them out. We’re on a football message board none of this is binding.

 

At work when I have an issue with something I go to the person who lives it everyday to get data and advice. In business we accept that the environment around us is dynamic and ever changing and we need to make adjustments to address those changes. It’s typically done in a collaborative way. We confuse this with politically charged issues.

 

Cut out all the intellectually dishonest people…what would you do with someone who owns rifles and body armor and is making explicit threats of a mass shooting incident. We can’t do anything? I don’t need a recap on the 2A, I understand it’s purpose and I’m a supporter. 

 

I’m interested in real conversation, but once again we always drift to the same place…

 

Thoughts…I struggle advocating criminalizing someone who leading indicators suggest is heading towards a criminal act. If they have not done anything yet it’s all hypothetical. My suggestion would be to re-examine what sort of explicit threats rise to the level of criminal. To me someone threatening a mass shooting who also has the means to do it, should absolutely be fair game for state intervention. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Rockpile233

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, Rockpile233 said:

The sick *****’s school reported him for threatening a mass shooting and other obvious cry for help behaviors. Yet he could still purchase rifles and body armor? He can’t even own a handgun legally in this state. Lot of inconsistencies.

 

I wish firearms advocates would step up and help craft legislation that actually makes sense. Instead we get a lot of digging in and slippery slope fear mongering. 
 

There were plenty of red flags. 

I can get on board with restricting someone who has made such a threat. He can’t legally own a handgun because the vast majority of shootings involve handguns, not rifles. Criminals obviously do lots of things  that they can’t do legally. Legislation is hardly a panacea, as murders take place every single day. Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens in the hopes of deterring a few miscreants is not the answer. 

[gobills404]

On 5/15/2022 at 9:03 AM, Tiberius said:

He would of been shot dead if he were a person of color, in all likelihood 

Plus the Waukesha Christmas parade attacker (black), the Brooklyn subway shooter (black), and the Boulder king soopers shooter (middle eastern) were all taken in alive.

 

I suggest you cry more.

Edited May 16, 2022 by gobills404

[Boatdrinks]

On 5/15/2022 at 11:05 AM, yall said:

That's actually not supported by data. I believe that topic is being addressed in another thread, citing a study from Roland Fryer.

 

Regardless, this is awful any way you slice it. 

Thank you Yall. Tibs is one of the biggest race baiters on the board. Police are trained to de escalate when a suspect turns a gun on themselves. Suspects are often shot when they do not follow instructions and make a move to reach for a weapon or begin to aim it at officers etc. This killer knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to be taken alive. 

3 hours ago, Beast said:

 

LOL...like I said, having a hard time accepting he was an extreme Leftist, huh Tibs?

 

 

I wonder if Tibs knows about NYS existing “red flag” law and why it wasn’t used on this psycho ? A liberal approach to crime was more responsible than any rhetoric. 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, gobills404 said:

Plus the Waukesha Christmas parade attacker (black), the Brooklyn subway shooter (black), and the Boulder king soopers shooter (middle eastern) were all taken in alive.

 

I suggest you cry more.

Sadly, so many more unarmed black men have been shot, some many times. 

So...

 

 

6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Thank you Yall. Tibs is one of the biggest race baiters on the board. Police are trained to de escalate when a suspect turns a gun on themselves. Suspects are often shot when they do not follow instructions and make a move to reach for a weapon or begin to aim it at officers etc. This killer knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to be taken alive. 

I wonder if Tibs knows about NYS existing “red flag” law and why it wasn’t used on this psycho ? A liberal approach to crime was more responsible than any rhetoric. 

Am I worse than the shooter? 

[ALF]

It looked like the first officers to take him in custody had side arms the killer was in body armor with AR 15. The officers would have a difficult shot to bring him down before he used the AR against them. 

[KDIGGZ]

41 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

You keep slamming the door. I promise I agree there are bad actors leading people astray, but cut them out. We’re on a football message board none of this is binding.

 

At work when I have an issue with something I go to the person who lives it everyday to get data and advice. In business we accept that the environment around us is dynamic and ever changing and we need to make adjustments to address those changes. It’s typically done in a collaborative way. We confuse this with politically charged issues.

 

Cut out all the intellectually dishonest people…what would you do with someone who owns rifles and body armor and is making explicit threats of a mass shooting incident. We can’t do anything? I don’t need a recap on the 2A, I understand it’s purpose and I’m a supporter. 

 

I’m interested in real conversation, but once again we always drift to the same place…

 

Thoughts…I struggle advocating criminalizing someone who leading indicators suggest is heading towards a criminal act. If they have not done anything yet it’s all hypothetical. My suggestion would be to re-examine what sort of explicit threats rise to the level of criminal. To me someone threatening a mass shooting who also has the means to do it, should absolutely be fair game for state intervention. 

Yes, I too want more open and honest conversations. You can't get that in many places these days. Once you make your position known, the folks on the other side don't usually care to understand your perspective because they already have their mind made up that they are right and you are the bad guy. It's very sad that this is what the world has come to. I'm happy to answer anyone's questions as I know this is a polarizing topic and there are people on the other side that simply can't understand how I can take such a position but I promise you it is very well thought out and rationale and I'm happy to explain my reasoning.

 

I am not slamming the door as you put it. I'm just stating the facts and the perspective of millions of gun owners in this country. All of us would like to stop such acts. It's absolutely sickening. If there was an easy answer I think something would have been done to stop it by now. This is much more nuanced than some may think.

 

I think when someone makes threats like that it should definitely be taken seriously. It's usually a cry for help or acceptance or both. There were probably many opportunities for someone to step in and they didn't. I look at the parents, family, friends, people at the school. Someone must have known this kid was off the rails and spending his entire life savings on weapons while also threatening to use them in a menacing manner. In a day and age when people are asking to defund police, I think there is probably not enough resources to look into these types of cases even if it was reported to authorities. So the burden is on his immediate circle to see the signs of a mentally disturbed person and to do something about it.

 

I wish there was a simple answer for this. I don't agree that the government should be the ones deciding who does and doesn't get to protect themselves and their family. That is way too much power and why would we think they would do the right thing with that power? History has proven otherwise. I think if the current administration backed off their rally cry to ban guns and both sides worked on implementing common sense laws that would in no way shift power or lead to further bans then maybe they can make some headway. When you have one side so extreme in their thinking it's going to make the other side dig their heels in and not want to give an inch. That's just an expected human reaction. Both sides are too far apart to come to any kind of agreements unfortunately. Extremism is high on both sides maybe more so than ever before in our history. I blame the politicians, the media, big tech more so than the people. Person to person communication like this is a start

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

"They" meaning the current administration who has already stated they want certain guns banned and they have placed Beto O'Rourke at the head of said movement purposely because that is their stated goal.

 

To be more specific, they want to ban "assault weapons." There's no such thing as an assault weapon. A stapler can be an assault weapon if you assault somebody with it. By placing a ban on assault weapons they can classify anything they want as an assault weapon thus banning all guns. They want to set that legal precedent which then gives them full autonomy to do as they please and I think both sides can agree that a strong government is what the forefathers were fighting to get away from and they didn't want future generations to end up in the same spot.

 

Also, similarly, a limit to the number of rounds in the same regard gives a legal precedent to limit the rounds to whatever they deem fit. Is 1 round enough? Like the old school muskets? What if you are being attacked by 2 people? Can you call a timeout? These scenarios seem silly until you are in them.

 

Common sense laws are a good idea but there are actors in our government who would gladly assume as much power as citizens are willing to give up and that's not a good situation for anybody. This is a very tragic situation and I wish there was an obvious answer to it. It's not as cut and dry as some people would like to think.

Hog wash. We have all sorts of gun laws and it hasn't degenerated into all guns being banned. That's a silly argument 

[Orlando Tim]

I don't know much about that area of NY where the whack job is from but I am curious how he was not dealt with more seriously. We had a student at my school threaten violence and she was removed and sent to an inpatient facility. One thing that few people are aware of is that the superintendent of the Marjory Stoneman district has been forced out and the reason he was forced out is related to perjury related to that school. Apparently he covered up all of the warning signs that the school ignored to protect himself and his cronies. I am curious what we will find out over the next months.

 

[KDIGGZ]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hog wash. We have all sorts of gun laws and it hasn't degenerated into all guns being banned. That's a silly argument 

Happy to explain it further if you have any specific questions. You say hogwash but that would set the legal precedent. So we are just supposed to trust the government? When has anyone been able to trust the government to do anything? There are new administrations every 4 years. Even if this administration promised not to ban guns the next certainly could. All you have to do is look at pretty much every other country in the world that has already banned guns. What makes you think they wouldn't here if given the legal precedent to do so?

[ArdmoreRyno]

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hog wash. We have all sorts of gun laws and it hasn't degenerated into all guns being banned. That's a silly argument 

 

Regardless of where it might lead... those who want to ban AR platform firearms can go f-off. 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Regardless of where it might lead... those who want to ban AR platform firearms can go f-off. 

They will probably win in the long run. 

14 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Happy to explain it further if you have any specific questions. You say hogwash but that would set the legal precedent. So we are just supposed to trust the government? When has anyone been able to trust the government to do anything? There are new administrations every 4 years. Even if this administration promised not to ban guns the next certainly could. All you have to do is look at pretty much every other country in the world that has already banned guns. What makes you think they wouldn't here if given the legal precedent to do so?

Are machine guns legal? 

[KDIGGZ]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 Are machine guns legal? 

Automatic weapons have already been banned. Semi-automatic weapons are legal. It's all in the wording. Now they want to specifically ban "assault weapons." As mentioned, anything can be an assault weapon. A frisbee can be an assault weapon if they so choose. All guns can definitely be assault weapons. That's way too much overreaching power to ever be allowed to be passed and that is what gun rights activists are fighting for. It would essentially be a ban on all guns.

Edited May 16, 2022 by KDIGGZ

[JoPoy88]

25 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I don't know much about that area of NY where the whack job is from but I am curious how he was not dealt with more seriously. We had a student at my school threaten violence and she was removed and sent to an inpatient facility. One thing that few people are aware of is that the superintendent of the Marjory Stoneman district has been forced out and the reason he was forced out is related to perjury related to that school. Apparently he covered up all of the warning signs that the school ignored to protect himself and his cronies. I am curious what we will find out over the next months.

 

it’s near Binghamton which is a “city” (~50,000 pop) but it’s basically the sticks. Close to PA border.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, KDIGGZ said:

Automatic weapons have already been banned. Semi-automatic weapons are legal. It's all in the wording. Now they want to specifically ban "assault weapons." As mentioned, anything can be an assault weapon. A frisbee can be an assault weapon if they so choose. All guns can be assault weapons. That's way too much overreaching power to ever be allowed to be passed and that is what gun rights activists are fighting for

No, a frisbee cannot be defined as an assault weapon 

[ALF]

One retired Buffalo Police Officer said it best , you can pass all the gun laws you want, but if you don't change peoples hearts it won't matter.

[KDIGGZ]

Just now, Tiberius said:

No, a frisbee cannot be defined as an assault weapon 

Why not? What's an assault weapon? A weapon used to assault someone. If you throw a frisbee at someone's head you have just assaulted them

[JoPoy88]

7 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Automatic weapons have already been banned. Semi-automatic weapons are legal. It's all in the wording. Now they want to specifically ban "assault weapons." As mentioned, anything can be an assault weapon. A frisbee can be an assault weapon if they so choose. That's way too much overreaching power to ever be allowed to be passed and that is what gun rights activists are fighting for

You know if/when “they” try to ban assault weapons there will have to be a bill that defines them with specificity, just like the original automatic ban you referenced. They don’t define it as “any weapon that could be used to commit assault.” You’re just playing baby games and semantics with this line youre on. 4chan level nonsense. 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by JoPoy88

[KDIGGZ]

Just now, JoPoy88 said:

You know if/when “they” try to ban assault weapons there will have to be a bill that defines them with specificity, just like the original automatic ban you referenced. They don’t define it as “any weapon that could be used to commit assault.” You’re just playing baby games and semantics with this line your on. 4chan level nonsense.

It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions and then resorted to complete dismissal of mine and millions of people's opinion on the matter, which is how these types of conversations often go when people are unable to thoughtfully rebut an argument.

 

They were able to classify automatic weapons by the way they are fired - automatically without pulling the trigger. That one was easy. Now how do you define an assault weapon? Give it a try. There isn't a way to do so without banning all guns