|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 9:06:38 GMT -5
Early reports indicate a shooting at a high school in St. Mary's County in Southern Maryland with some injuries. No further details available other than the incident has been contained.
How long will this madness continue? That's at least 7 school shootings since Parkland and about 20 so far in 2018. Something's got to give.
And in a week all will be forgotten and the status quo will remain . . . and there will be another school shooting.
Makes a stronger and stronger case for home schooling.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 9:11:21 GMT -5
Just saw a WSJ headline that says at least 10 school shootings since Parkland -- St. Mary's County would make 11 -- and at least 7 other potential school shootings thwarted by police.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 9:38:07 GMT -5
Update: Three people, including the shooter, in critical condition.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 12:29:35 GMT -5
We probably ought to start asking these shooters why they pick these targets. It might have something to do with knowing schools are gun free zones, and no one will shoot back.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 12:53:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 20, 2018 16:22:30 GMT -5
We probably ought to start asking these shooters why they pick these targets. It might have something to do with knowing schools are gun free zones, and no one will shoot back. All evidence points the other way, RJ. Less shootings take place in gun free zones than outside them. Check the links that I posted recently to Stanford and Hopkins.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2018 17:55:33 GMT -5
We probably ought to start asking these shooters why they pick these targets. It might have something to do with knowing schools are gun free zones, and no one will shoot back. All evidence points the other way, RJ. Less shootings take place in gun free zones than outside them. Check the links that I posted recently to Stanford and Hopkins. Then why didn't it stop Nikolas Cruz, or the loser today? Or James Holmes at the theater? Or any of the other school shootings? It shouldn't surprise anyone that fewer shootings take place in gun free zones. Most shootings are crime-related, and take place in inner-cities that have stricter gun laws. Its the mass shootings that are the core of the problem, and they do tend to take place in venues where the victims will be disarmed. It never occurs to you that the low-gun-crime jurisdictions in the US, are the rural areas where everyone owns a gun, does it?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:23:58 GMT -5
Early reports indicate a shooting at a high school in St. Mary's County in Southern Maryland with some injuries. No further details available other than the incident has been contained. How long will this madness continue? That's at least 7 school shootings since Parkland and about 20 so far in 2018. Something's got to give. And in a week all will be forgotten and the status quo will remain . . . and there will be another school shooting. Makes a stronger and stronger case for home schooling. Or getting the Feds out of "education", outlawing the teacher's unions, and arming more and more people. This kid was legally prohibited, by both state and Federal law, from even possessing a handgun. Yet he had it. That means he ignored all the laws passed to prevent him from having one.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:26:58 GMT -5
We probably ought to start asking these shooters why they pick these targets. It might have something to do with knowing schools are gun free zones, and no one will shoot back. All evidence points the other way, RJ. Less shootings take place in gun free zones than outside them. Check the links that I posted recently to Stanford and Hopkins. Any "study" that comes to that conclusion is fake from jump street. Nearly every school in the US is a "gun free zone", and you are complaining about it. CA is a "gun free state", yet they had San Bernadino. The night club shooting in FL was in a "gun free zone". So was the VT shooting. What we have is the result of generations of Leftist degeneracy, polluting the minds of the young, until they think it's "cool" to shoot up a bunch of innocents.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 20, 2018 19:28:38 GMT -5
All evidence points the other way, RJ. Less shootings take place in gun free zones than outside them. Check the links that I posted recently to Stanford and Hopkins. Then why didn't it stop Nikolas Cruz, or the loser today? Or James Holmes at the theater? Or any of the other school shootings? It shouldn't surprise anyone that fewer shootings take place in gun free zones. Most shootings are crime-related, and take place in inner-cities that have stricter gun laws. Its the mass shootings that are the core of the problem, and they do tend to take place in venues where the victims will be disarmed. It never occurs to you that the low-gun-crime jurisdictions in the US, are the rural areas where everyone owns a gun, does it? Of course not. He never ventures outside his "safe space", so doesn't know anything about rural America, where people actually do work, believe in God, and try to raise their children to respect others, instead of shouting them down, even assaulting them, because they don't hold the "correct" viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 23, 2018 8:01:01 GMT -5
I had to laugh the other day... I was speaking with a friend that is headed to DC tomorrow for the big gun-grabber rally. On his way, he is picking up a friend of his, and they plan to take some pot with them and get stoned, now that recreational pot is "legal" in DC.
It isn't really legal, of course, because it is still prohibited by Federal Law. But what made the conversation so bizarre was the notion that these two guys were going to demand more gun control laws while simultaneously proving how useless and ineffective the marijuana prohibition laws are.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 23, 2018 10:19:37 GMT -5
Gun-grabber rally? No prejudice on your part, is there, RJ.
I don't think anyone has proposed grabbing anyone's guns. Of course, your only suggestion is to tighten up the background check process, something that would not stop most killings. Did I read that there are something like over 30,000 gun deaths a year in our country, and another 75,000 or so injuries? But you want to strengthen background checks.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 23, 2018 10:38:28 GMT -5
Gun-grabber rally? No prejudice on your part, is there, RJ. I don't think anyone has proposed grabbing anyone's guns. Of course, your only suggestion is to tighten up the background check process, something that would not stop most killings. Did I read that there are something like over 30,000 gun deaths a year in our country, and another 75,000 or so injuries? But you want to strengthen background checks. No. No prejudice on my part at all. That's exactly what this is. You've suggested repealing the 2A yourself. You walked it back for being unrealistic, but that combined with an Austrailian style confiscation is EXACTLY what you and these kids are pushing for.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 23, 2018 12:19:45 GMT -5
I suggested repeal of the 2A along with a number of other suggestions. I noted that any repeal is unlikely, but it was an option that I presented along with a number of others to be complete and to try to start some discussion.
But apparently you're OK with over 100,000 gun injuries and deaths a year.
Strengthening background checks -- possibly with longer waiting periods to make sure the checks are complete -- is a step in the right direction. But it's not going to stop the proliferation of guns in the country, and will never stop someone from using a legally-acquired gun for some sort of violent end.
But you're content to strengthen background checks and let the level of gun violence and violence at schools maintain or increase from current levels.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 23, 2018 13:13:01 GMT -5
I suggested repeal of the 2A along with a number of other suggestions. I noted that any repeal is unlikely, but it was an option that I presented along with a number of others to be complete and to try to start some discussion. But apparently you're OK with over 100,000 gun injuries and deaths a year. Strengthening background checks -- possibly with longer waiting periods to make sure the checks are complete -- is a step in the right direction. But it's not going to stop the proliferation of guns in the country, and will never stop someone from using a legally-acquired gun for some sort of violent end. But you're content to strengthen background checks and let the level of gun violence and violence at schools maintain or increase from current levels. You're going to talk about "gun injuries" now? There are on average four times that many knife injuries every year. When are you going to get your priorities straight? Oh wait, your priority is seeing to it that our civil rights are crushed so you can impose a preferred fascist regime. That's the only reasonable explanation. The average number of gun deaths is at 33,636, about 21,000 of which are suicides, and an additional 500 of which are accidental and do not represent a real threat to the general public. That leaves a little over 11,000 gun homicides a year. By comparison, traffic accidents claim 30,000+ lives every year. You are 3 times more likely to be killed in a car, than lose your life in a gun homicide, most of which are due to gang violence. Prior to 2017, mass shootings have never accounted for more than 80 deaths per year. While every death is tragic, if your priority is on mass-shootings you've got things very, very backwards. If you want to impact gun violence in the US, the focus has to be on inner-city gang warfare. Disarming the potential victims of the Bloods and Crips seems like an especially evil solution to the problem. Which again, is largely overseen by the gun-grabbing Democrats running our crime-centers and the Democrats who keep voting for them. This gun violence is largely committed by people with illegally obtained guns. Additional gun control laws will only serve to drive more weapons into the black market making it easier for the gang bangers to get weapons. Gun control laws work the same way every other prohibition laws do. They create black markets for criminals to thrive in.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 23, 2018 17:35:15 GMT -5
You worry about civil rights being crushed. I worry about people being killed needlessly. I guess your priorities have nothing to do with life, just securing more and more guns. More unthinking partisanship, more mindless following the NRA talking points.
You continue to show that you don't care at all about the violence in our country.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 23, 2018 18:08:44 GMT -5
You worry about civil rights being crushed. I worry about people being killed needlessly. I guess your priorities have nothing to do with life, just securing more and more guns. More unthinking partisanship, more mindless following the NRA talking points. You continue to show that you don't care at all about the violence in our country. You're focusing on a TINY number of deaths every year while ignoring gang violence which FAR exceeds the casualty counts of the occasional mass shooter by many orders of magnitude. Gang violence not only can't be stopped with gun control, it is fueled by it. Lets be realistic: you only want gun control as a political issue in support of your own narrow and unthinking political tribe. Actually reducing gun violence means going after criminals. But you would oppose this too as racist.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 23, 2018 20:51:53 GMT -5
Gun-grabber rally? No prejudice on your part, is there, RJ. I don't think anyone has proposed grabbing anyone's guns. Of course, your only suggestion is to tighten up the background check process, something that would not stop most killings. Did I read that there are something like over 30,000 gun deaths a year in our country, and another 75,000 or so injuries? But you want to strengthen background checks. You are either lying, or have had your head buried in cow manure for at least a year. Oregon is proposing a law that will make it illegal to own an "assault rifle", described as any rifle with a detachable magazine and a folding stock. They are also trying to prohibit any firearm or magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. If it passes, anyone owning such a monster must, MUST, sell it out of state, turn it in to police, or give it to an FFL licensed dealer. All of the idiots, puppets, and Communists that are "marching" on DC are demanding that any scary looking firearm be banned. IOW, "assault rifles". What they have no idea of is that assault rifles are covered under GCA 1934, and must be registered, licensed, and taxed. And no new ones have been permitted if manufactured after 1968. How many vehicle deaths are there in the US every year? Why aren't you "marching" to ban cars? How many deaths by medical malpractice? Why aren't you "marching" to ban doctors? How about swimming pools? They kill as many as firearms every year, why aren't they banned?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 23, 2018 20:53:33 GMT -5
I suggested repeal of the 2A along with a number of other suggestions. I noted that any repeal is unlikely, but it was an option that I presented along with a number of others to be complete and to try to start some discussion. But apparently you're OK with over 100,000 gun injuries and deaths a year. Strengthening background checks -- possibly with longer waiting periods to make sure the checks are complete -- is a step in the right direction. But it's not going to stop the proliferation of guns in the country, and will never stop someone from using a legally-acquired gun for some sort of violent end. But you're content to strengthen background checks and let the level of gun violence and violence at schools maintain or increase from current levels. How many of your "gun" deaths and injuries are due to gang or drug activity? Both are already banned, and anyone involved in either are already banned from possessing a firearm. So, how will you get all of the gang bangers that The Puppet imported to turn in their firearms?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 23, 2018 21:01:48 GMT -5
You worry about civil rights being crushed. I worry about people being killed needlessly. I guess your priorities have nothing to do with life, just securing more and more guns. More unthinking partisanship, more mindless following the NRA talking points. You continue to show that you don't care at all about the violence in our country. If you were worried about that, you would back outlawing Democrats. If you notice, the places with the least violent crime, including "gun" crime, are the ones with the least restrictive "gun" laws. Which means, you are clinically insane, since you insist that we keep doing the same things, but you expect different results. Your sainted Federal government has had nearly every one of the mass shooters "on it's radar", and did nothing at all about them. The Fl shooting, the neighbors, foster parents, close acquaintances, even the school complained to the police, even the FBI, about him, and nothing was done. And you want to disarm the populace, so that everyone is as helpless as those kids in that school. Not to mention that, given how you feel about Trump, that would place all the firepower in his hands. Hypocritical much?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 24, 2018 9:24:42 GMT -5
You worry about civil rights being crushed. I worry about people being killed needlessly. I guess your priorities have nothing to do with life, just securing more and more guns. More unthinking partisanship, more mindless following the NRA talking points. You continue to show that you don't care at all about the violence in our country. You're focusing on a TINY number of deaths every year while ignoring gang violence which FAR exceeds the casualty counts of the occasional mass shooter by many orders of magnitude. Gang violence not only can't be stopped with gun control, it is fueled by it. Lets be realistic: you only want gun control as a political issue in support of your own narrow and unthinking political tribe. Actually reducing gun violence means going after criminals. But you would oppose this too as racist. Nice deflection, RJ. Point to the cities -- make gun violence a black problem. No bigotry there, right? While you sit in your 96% white neighborhood. 70% of the people in the country support some form of gun control. We have a problem. You want to strengthen background checks. As usual, you have no solution except to blame others. More on your continued unthinking partisanship and blind following NRA talking points. How does it feel to know that high school seniors have more and better ideas than you do?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 24, 2018 9:44:54 GMT -5
You're focusing on a TINY number of deaths every year while ignoring gang violence which FAR exceeds the casualty counts of the occasional mass shooter by many orders of magnitude. Gang violence not only can't be stopped with gun control, it is fueled by it. Lets be realistic: you only want gun control as a political issue in support of your own narrow and unthinking political tribe. Actually reducing gun violence means going after criminals. But you would oppose this too as racist. Nice deflection, RJ. Point to the cities -- make gun violence a black problem. No bigotry there, right? While you sit in your 96% white neighborhood. There's plenty of bigotry here. It's with people who turn a blind eye to the very serious problem of gun violence in the cities because most of the victims are black, there are no Republicans anywhere near the problem to blame, and it doesn't fit the preferred narrative that the NRA is the problem. The NRA supports some forms of gun control. But then you'd know that if you took some time to listen to the group of people who know more about guns than anyone else in the country save possibly the military. Instead you prefer to get your non-existent policy ideas from children.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 24, 2018 10:27:44 GMT -5
Keep deflecting, RJ. Keep the problem in the city and you don't have to worry about. You can remain in you little white enclave. The fact of the matter is that gun violence is not just a cit problem, it's a US problem It's everywhere, it's pervasive in our society. But you'd rather ignore facts and live in you narrow-minded world in your little white enclave so you can continue to hug your coworkers.
You're completely out of touch with mainstream America on this issue. Your opinion is worthless and hereinafter will be dismissed for the unthinking partisan claptrap it is.
I suggest you spend some time today watching the various marches. You might be surprised to see how far from the mainstream you really are. You might even learn something . . . though I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 24, 2018 12:55:59 GMT -5
Keep deflecting, RJ. Keep the problem in the city and you don't have to worry about. You can remain in you little white enclave. The fact of the matter is that gun violence is not just a cit problem, it's a US problem It's everywhere, it's pervasive in our society. But you'd rather ignore facts and live in you narrow-minded world in your little white enclave so you can continue to hug your coworkers. You're completely out of touch with mainstream America on this issue. Your opinion is worthless and hereinafter will be dismissed for the unthinking partisan claptrap it is. I suggest you spend some time today watching the various marches. You might be surprised to see how far from the mainstream you really are. You might even learn something . . . though I doubt it. No. It isn't a whole country problem. Does gun violence happen in Snyder County? Yes, but its exceedingly rare. Not even close to the daily problem it is in Baltimore. My opinion may be out of the mainstream, but it is reality. Dismiss it all you want. Pretend up is down, left is right, and green is red all you want. It just makes you look ridiculous to those of us who live in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Mar 24, 2018 13:57:00 GMT -5
No credibility, RJ. You're in the small minority here, and your unthinking partisan opinion is worthless.
|
|