Active shooter?

[Tero]

Nation hearing voices!!!
https://www.theonion.com/nation-hears-v ... 1823084495

[NineBerry]

In a private Instagram group chat, confessed school shooter Nikolas Cruz repeatedly espoused racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views and displayed an obsession with violence and guns.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/e ... index.html

[Brian Peacock]

/Scathing comment here

[Woodbutcher]

Woodbutcher, it was not possible to shoot 17 students with that musket you brought to school.

If you use 2.75 inch magnum slugs and line the kids up properly you should be able to fire five shots and get that many. I had a single shot Cooey, though. And number six bird shot.

[Galaxian]

.... PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING - WHAT EXACTLY IS A FALSE FLAG - According To Joe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umC0cmR73_k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn1-WoU8lEg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_mFSweVhGo
......

Just been a day, and already the first video (above) has been deleted on some bullshit bogus ploy of "...removed for violating YouTube's policy on harassment and bullying." Except; there was no harassment and/or bullying. No, the reason it was removed was due to non-PC content.
That expunged video was on the "According to Joe" channel. Joe is a mildly spoken former policeman, not given to expletives or harassment, or bullying. He simply expresses his opinion in a measured rational style. But our new lords & masters do not want unapproved opinions to be disseminated. So they expunge them.
Joe's excellent analysis of false flags was deleted because it dealt with 'false flags'. Those are, by definition, usually done by officials with an agenda. In this case banning guns.
Someone might be able to find it in cyberspace. But I doubt it. Its original YouTube title was: PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING - WHAT EXACTLY IS A FALSE FLAG - According To Joe
In fact, about half the videos I've posted have been deleted; most by the site. All the deleted ones had some unapproved PoV or topic.
Now, Galaxian is old enough and remembers enough to see what's going on. But the generation since 1980 has been fully indoctrinated into the new mindset. They don't know any different. To them, a fascist totalitarian society is as it should be. Be prepared (whatever good it might do): week by week it will become harder to air any unsavory ideas. Lips are being sewn shut. Tongues are becoming prison cells!
So you see; "There is NO hope for this world. NONE whatsoever!"

[Rum]

False flags videos are always removed. This was removed, therefore it was a false flag video.

You go around in so many circles, it is no wonder you disappear up your own aresehole.

[pErvinalia]

I have it on good authority that the "removal" of the false flag video was actually a false flag.

[Rum]

I have it on good authority that the "removal" of the false flag video was actually a false flag.

That's what they want us to think. I think.

[Brian Peacock]

Really? We have to look to Infowars for evidence now? Infowars? Really? What about your summary Galaxian? Still waiting?

[Sean Hayden]

Wrong thread

[JimC]

Galaxian seems to be acting as an NRA shill...

[Forty Two]

The only gun control proposal that can work to reduce the homicides per 100,000 rate in the US. Given the number of guns in the US, the rate of homicides per 100,000 of 4.2 is remarkably small. There are more guns in the US than people.

The only way to reduce that number, though, is to get rid of handguns. I'm sorry to say it gun-folks, but that's the reality. The vast majority of guns used in homicides are handguns. They are used in drug related offenses, robberies, gang activities, and the like. They are concealable, and they are small and easy to carry.

The long gun, really, is not the heart of the problem. The incident in Florida and other school shootings can be mostly eliminated with security measures at the schools. But they are the ones that are the most horrifying.

So, here is what the US has to do, IMO:

1. General prohibition on new handgun purchases, except under limited, tightly controlled circumstances;
2. Rifles limited in caliber up to a .22 and .223 or thereabouts. AR-15s and other semiautos still allowed in those calibers. Maybe blip higher. Regulation on ammo quantities too.
3. Licensing of all gun owners with strict background check, including current handgun owners who will lose their guns if they fail the background check.
4. Registration of each firearm, and an obligation to report when lost or stolen, or when any transfer of ownership occurs.

Well-regulated militia, still with the right to keep and bear arms (subject to said regulations).

[L'Emmerdeur]

Why you ol' gun-grabber you.

Anything like the your proposal would be strenuously opposed by almost all Republicans and many Democrats in Congress. Even if we ignore this and assume that your measures were to be adopted, there is a significant element in the population of the US that would do everything they could to resist. I participate on a site that serves as a gathering place for these generally law-abiding folks, and for years they've been talking about their plans for dealing with laws restricting gun ownership. They've been stockpiling ammunition for nearly a decade and their watchwords are 'Cosmoline and a shovel.' Then they go on to beat their chests and talk about 'armed resistance.' Of course not all of them would actually follow through but there would be some, without doubt. It would make for interesting times.

[Forty Two]

Why you ol' gun-grabber you.

That's an illustration of how sometimes you and others don't bother trying to understand what I say. I have never once objected to reasonable gun control measures, nor have I in any way accused anyone of being a "gun grabber" or the like. I have proposed reasonable options on other threads in the past, as well. It must be some underlying pigeon-holing of me into a category of person - this happens often. As soon as I espouse a view not in line with a particular person, I'm dropped in the "conservative" bucket (or the like "right wing" or whatever). No matter how many times I've demonstrated my views on a variety of issues to be markedly otherwise, that nevertheless continues.

Anything like the your proposal would be strenuously opposed by almost all Republicans and many Democrats in Congress.

The assertion wasn't what would pass Congress, only what would work to reduce the overall gun homicide rate through gun control. The gun homicide rate has been dropping overall for a long time now, but if one wants to reduce gun deaths through some means of gun control, the target is not AR-15s. The focus must be handguns.

will Even if we ignore this and assume that your measures were to be adopted, there is a significant element in the population of the US that would do everything they could to resist.

Well, that's become in fashion these days - to "resist" lawful elections and measures.... Anyway, there would have to be certainly a come-to-Jesus moment for the US population.

I participate on a site that serves as a gathering place for these generally law-abiding folks, and for years they've been talking about their plans for dealing with laws restricting gun ownership. They've been stockpiling ammunition for nearly a decade and their watchwords are 'Cosmoline and a shovel.' Then they go on to beat their chests and talk about 'armed resistance.' Of course not all of them would actually follow through but there would be some, without doubt. It would make for interesting times.

Yes, but the numbers of those people are small, and the numbers that would actually participate in armed resistance is small.

Also, measures can be interposed gradually.

What I would suggest, if anyone wants to persuade anyone, is to stop with what I am seeing around town and on social media -- the near constant berating, belittling and moralizing by those on the left side of the spectrum against those who are pro-gun. Telling them that they're evil, or stupid, or both, yelling and screaming at them, that's not going to convince them. It's going have them dig in their heels.

The only way to turn these people is to come up with a plan that lets them keep guns, but imposes restrictions that can be lived with.

But, the bottom line is that the overall gun homicide rate cannot be reduced by any gun control measure that does not address handguns. It is just impossible. I don't see how that's even arguable. If we banned all semiautos and never had another mass shooting, the rate of homicides would hardly move.

[laklak]

Disagree on the rifle caliber, the most commonly used calibers in mass shootings are .223/5.56, .22LR, and 9mm. The AK caliber, 7.62mm, is an up and coming contender. In fact, the most deadly caliber, if you're talking about sheer number of dead per incident, is definitely .223/5.56, Breivik killed 69 people using a 5.56 Mini14. Hunting calibers are larger and more powerful, but have a higher utility IRL than .223, and are rarely used in "ordinary" mass shootings. They're more suited for sniper attacks like Charles Whitman. Plus, most hunting rifles have small magazines, generally 5-7 rounds, and are bolt action. No way the hunters are giving them up, nor should they.