• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Another shooting -- Will another mass shooting affect the election about 2 weeks?

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,495
436
126
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/shooting-reported-at-wisconsin-spa/?hpt=hp_t1

How will this affect the 2012 presidential election?

will President Obama if elected enact martial law to seize private weapons?

Personally I think the sad fact is that shootings are so common in the U.S. that unless the shooter takes spectacular efforts the chances are it won't make national news.

P.S. Oh yeah I bet some forum trolls here get the hardest boner at the thought of being in the immediate area when the next mass shooting happens

And I for one sincerely hope they get their wish
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
62,090
15,312
136
Doubt it. Neither presidential candidate is running on gun issues. The NRA was already in cappuccino mode way back in January so they don't have any head space left to get even more excited.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
Probably won't. The only mention of guns I heard of was the 2nd debate.

Martial law? Unconstitutional seizures? Over 4 dead in a shooting? What are you on and where can I get some?

I haven't head about this, but I don't watch much TV. I lived just outside DC for most of my life and hearing of the occaisional shooting was just business as usual and another reminder of where not to go when visiting DC.

I hope so too. I'd gladly see spidey hailed as a national hero if the result was to get the anti-gun idiots here to shut up.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If one of the people on this forum, carried a concealed firearm, is at a shooting and stops the shooter from killing/harming many more people, I will thank them profusely...as I hope even the most ardent anti-gun nuts would do.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,123
126
A mass shooting will not affect the election. Neither one is doing a thing about anyone's right to carry a gun so it's a non issue for the candidates as they know it makes for boring debate fodder when they both agree on an issue. It is only an issue for the NRA and gun nuts. People will again foolishly stock up if Obama is reelected for no reason other than having been feed a steaming plate full of FUD...
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,495
436
126
If one of the people on this forum who likes to carry a concealed weapon comes across a shooting decides to throw down and gets himself shot because he wasn't really as much as a BAMF as the weapon made him feel...

I'd feel bad for his family.


Also don't make the mistake of equating "lefty" with anti-gun. doesn't always work that way.
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
As parodied on last night's SNL skit about the 2nd debate:

"What would you do to keep assault weapons off the street?"

Romney: "I would do nothing"
Obama: "I...would also do nothing"
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
If one of the people on this forum who likes to carry a concealed weapon comes across a shooting decides to throw down and gets himself shot because he wasn't really as much as a BAMF as the weapon made him feel...

I'd feel bad for his family.


Also don't make the mistake of equating "lefty" with anti-gun. doesn't always work that way.
You do know there are reported, citable instances of concealed carry permit holders stopping violent crimes right? However much you may disagree with the politics of some here, that's no reason to believe they'd be any less capable in that role.

And at the very least, getting shot would be absorbing bullets that would otherwise be going somewhere else, which is a pretty heroic thing in my book.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
As parodied on last night's SNL skit about the 2nd debate:

"What would you do to keep assault weapons off the street?"

Romney: "The NRA endorsed me and its a Republican House, so nothing."
Obama: "It's a Republican House, so nothing."
A more accurate, if less humorous translation.
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
A more accurate, if less humorous translation.
Pretty much. It would be possible to get some sort of a weak assault weapons ban through, but it would take pretty much all the political capital he'd get from winning in November. It wouldn't really change much though since our gun culture is so strong. Assault weapons deaths are far less common than hand gun deaths so it's trying to plug the smaller of two big holes. It's really just become a reality that because we worship guns so much, we will have more gun violence. That's just the way it is and what we have decided as a nation.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
Pretty much. It would be possible to get some sort of a weak assault weapons ban through, but it would take pretty much all the political capital he'd get from winning in November. It wouldn't really change much though since our gun culture is so strong. Assault weapons deaths are far less common than hand gun deaths so it's trying to plug the smaller of two big holes. It's really just become a reality that because we worship guns so much, we will have more gun violence. That's just the way it is and what we have decided as a nation.
Not the way I would have put it, but as it should be IMO.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
Not the way I would have put it, but as it should be IMO.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
Well, it is apparent that banning guns/type of guns will not solve our problem of gun violence. We have a culture that worships guns so banning them isn't the way to reduce violence. There is no quick, easy way to significantly reduce gun deaths. It requires a culture wide change that would take decades and there really isn't any motivation to do so.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
Well, it is apparent that banning guns/type of guns will not solve our problem of gun violence. We have a culture that worships guns so banning them isn't the way to reduce violence. There is no quick, easy way to significantly reduce gun deaths. It requires a culture wide change that would take decades and there really isn't any motivation to do so.
I think it's more the fact that gun crime is a pretty localized problem. Shootings make good news, and apparently there are thousands a year, but how many have you actually been exposed to? How many have your friends been exposed to? I imagine the answer for most people is zero.

If you take out suicides and inner-city gang violence, the number of gun deaths drop like a stone.

And a ban wouldn't fail because of gun-worshiping, it would fail because we have essentially one gun per man, woman and child floating around (FBI estimates). It would fail the same way alcohol prohibition failed.

The culture-wide change we need is one that encourages and provides education, responsibility, medical care and opportunity. Easier said then done I know, but only crazies and criminals kill without just cause. To attack guns is to attack the symptom and not the disease.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,495
436
126
You do know there are reported, citable instances of concealed carry permit holders stopping violent crimes right? However much you may disagree with the politics of some here, that's no reason to believe they'd be any less capable in that role.
Oh I know. It doesn't change the fact that however much they practice at the shooting range chance or fortune may just not favor them or the shooter may be quicker than them. Even if they are faster, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

The point is even if I carried a concealed weapon I wouldn't be making the jackass posts that they do.

And at the very least, getting shot would be absorbing bullets that would otherwise be going somewhere else, which is a pretty heroic thing in my book.
Or an unfortunate way of adding to the body count if the shooter has several magazines ready and is proficient at reloading, and depending on how close he was a victim who unwittingly provided the shooter with another weapon.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
Oh I know. However much they practice at the shooting range chance or fortune may just not favor them sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

The point is even if I carried a concealed weapon I wouldn't be making the jackass posts that they do.



Or an unfortunate way of adding to the body count if the shooter has several magazines ready and is proficient at reloading.
Yeah, granted not all CC holders are shining examples of civility, and there are those who carry to feel big, but similar things are true of any demographic. There are also asshole drivers who talk big and drive stupid, but they apparently passed the licensing exam.

It takes a good deal of guts to run towards gunfire in the first place. I'm pretty sure any thoughts of "I have a gun so I'm a BAMF" would dissappear in the face of an actual opponent.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,495
436
126
It takes a good deal of guts to run towards gunfire in the first place. I'm pretty sure any thoughts of "I have a gun so I'm a BAMF" would dissappear in the face of an actual opponent.
Agreed. Anyone who gets a CCW better damn well be as responsible as the local government and/or state believes they are.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Why are people surprised that this kind of thing happens so frequently? Our government goes around shooting people all the time. So the people who engage in these mass shootings are really just following the government's lead.

And to think that some of you believe our government can be trusted to "control" guns...

LOLOLOL!
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,219
383
126
I never even heard about this on the news until I read it here this morning, in Off-Topic. Seems strange that no one, or not very many, is talking about it. I should say I mainly use NPR/BBC for news (listen to Michigan Radio in the car all the time) and some New York Times.

Anyway, I agree with irishScott about 100% with what he's said here.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,391
31
91
Our government goes around shooting people all the time.
That's just what they want you to believe. In reality, the government doesn't kill people, they just create the witnesses. They have much more control of the operation that way. Can you imagine if they had to rely on the random movements of people to get witnesses? What if nobody decided to show up? How would the lesson get out?

The Knights Templar were the first to effectively use witness creation (although the technology has been around forever). That's why we still know of them today.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
I think it's more the fact that gun crime is a pretty localized problem. Shootings make good news, and apparently there are thousands a year, but how many have you actually been exposed to? How many have your friends been exposed to? I imagine the answer for most people is zero.

If you take out suicides and inner-city gang violence, the number of gun deaths drop like a stone.

And a ban wouldn't fail because of gun-worshiping, it would fail because we have essentially one gun per man, woman and child floating around (FBI estimates). It would fail the same way alcohol prohibition failed.

The culture-wide change we need is one that encourages and provides education, responsibility, medical care and opportunity. Easier said then done I know, but only crazies and criminals kill without just cause. To attack guns is to attack the symptom and not the disease.

well said. . . to the point and accurate. but the anti's are irrational and go on emotion and not facts. . .
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The gun control advocates are coming, the gun control advocates are coming. Look to your local North Church windows to see. One lantern if they are coming by land, two lanterns if they are coming by sea, and three lanterns if they are coming over the local air waves. To arms to arms, help us protect our sacred American right to kill each other.

Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people. And guns sure help criminals and irresponsibly nuts kill people far more efficiently. Especially when the most efficient way to obtain a gun is to rob the houses of legitimate gun owners while they away from home doing something else. Its a lot cheaper that way. Why should we allow criminals to own and use cheap Saturday night specials prone to jamming, when we can arm them with excellent quality Glocks, and Assault rifles? Its why I am a proud NRA member, the criminals and irrational nuts best friend.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY