Incomprehensible mass shooting happens again

Page 67 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
E

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
9,038
4,354
136
igor_kavinski said:
www.npr.org

The Senate gun bill would close the 'boyfriend loophole.' Here's what that means

Federal law prevents some convicted domestic abusers from owning a gun, depending on their relationship to the victim. The new gun safety bill would expand that definition to include dating partners.
www.npr.org www.npr.org



Woman saying that the fear of women acting disingenuously is unfounded? How naive of her to not figure out that some women will start abusing this law now precisely because it exists?
Click to expand...
Yup same excuse why they don’t want rape exceptions. But at least Oklahoma allows it if there is a police report filed.
 
P

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,049
7,976
136
igor_kavinski said:
www.npr.org

The Senate gun bill would close the 'boyfriend loophole.' Here's what that means

Federal law prevents some convicted domestic abusers from owning a gun, depending on their relationship to the victim. The new gun safety bill would expand that definition to include dating partners.
www.npr.org www.npr.org



Woman saying that the fear of women acting disingenuously is unfounded? How naive of her to not figure out that some women will start abusing this law now precisely because it exists?

Female domestic abusers: "I will report you for abuse and take your gun rights away, Bitchhhhh!"

Amber Heards everywhere will rejoice.
Click to expand...

Don't know what point you are trying to make. Surely the news article is about applying the same gun-bans to those convicted of abusing their partners (that they are not married to) as to those convicted of abusing the partner to whom they are married. Seems reasonable to me. Abuse is abuse, and an abuser is just as likely to misuse a firearm regardless of whether they abused a spouse or a romantic partner that they weren't married to.

Are you just making the usual dubious argument that women lie about abuse? Even leaving aside the truth-or-falsity of that, I don't see the relevance - it still wouldn't justify having different rules depending on whether there was a marriage or not, and in any case the gun-ban isn't based purely on accusations, but on criminal convictions.

If you are seriously claiming such convictions are often based on false accusations, apart from wondering where the evidence is for that claim, I'd suggest any victim of such a wrongful conviction has bigger things to worry about than a gun ban.

As for Amber Heard, given what came out in that case, I can't say I'd be horrified at Johnny Depp being banned from owning a gun. Such an outcome might be to his own benefit, given what a self-destructive, out-of-control character he appears to be (a great shame that Kurt Cobain never recieved such a ban).

Frankly it would be no bad thing if both of them were so banned, come to that. I wouldn't trust either Depp or Heard with a firearm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski
Artorias

Artorias

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2014
2,111
1,382
136
MrSquished said:
I mean this was very predictable. Uvalde cops harassing woman who went in and saved her son and other kids

globalnews.ca

Uvalde mother says police are harassing her after she saved kids from shooting - National | Globalnews.ca

The woman's lawyer claims police officers in Uvalde have parked outside her house and flashed car lights at her.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...

The entire police department needs to be burned to the ground, have the ever living shit sued of them, ban all officers for life as they are unfit for duty. Take it from their pension and award a billion dollars as compensation to the parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linux23, dank69, hal2kilo and 1 other person
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,106
12,209
146
Artorias said:
The entire police department needs to be burned to the ground, have the ever living shit sued of them, ban all officers for life as they are unfit for duty. Take it from their pension and award a billion dollars as compensation to the parents.
Click to expand...
Probably assign the responsibility of appointing a new police chief to the Governor (assuming that's not his usual role) for good measure. Make sure that guy stays on the straight and narrow.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
This seems like a good idea at first glance, but I doubt it will pass.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Hochul signs New York bill requiring social media history to obtain gun carry permit - Washington Examiner

New Yorkers may have to share their social media history and character references to obtain permits to carry concealed firearms in public, according to legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) on Friday evening. Those seeking gun permits would have to disclose both their active and inactive...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com

As we all know, most of the recent angry hateful mass shooters have posted a crapload of violent rhetoric on their social media platforms well before actually carrying out the murders. So in theory it may seem obvious to check these things before allowing someone a concealed carry permit. However theres a serious privacy issue because not everyone uses their real name and face on all social media and you could also go thru and just delete any posts you think somebody might find volatile right before you apply for a permit. Also most of the recent shooters never had a concealed carry permit anyway, they just open carried a rifle or handgun or concealed it illegally and went to their target without any obstruction. Several of them even acquired their weapons in an illegal manner so its not like they really give a crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: igor_kavinski
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
23,075
5,557
146
uallas5 said:
Except the fact that the "Wild West" is mostly a myth, first created by pulp fiction writers and then reinforced by Hollywood. The real history of the west doesn't jibe with our collective John Wayne sense of self-aggrandizement, which is completely entangled in the whole gun fetish thing.

How wild was the Wild West? | Live Science
In reality, the West was a lot tamer than it's often portrayed in popular culture,...

The Wild West of Myth and Reality - Historyplex

In spite of these specific incidents of violence, the lawlessness of the Wild West has been blown out of proportion. Ironically, the myth of the lawless West began before the period was over. Dime novels written in the East in the latter part of the 19th century exaggerated, or simply made up, stories about the crimes and criminals of the West. Hollywood later perpetuated the myth, feeding the public’s desire for excitement and adventure with stories of gunfights in the street and stagecoach robberies. The true story of the Old West is boring by comparison.

Even the whole "big iron on your hip" is completely blown out of propostion:

However, fans of Hollywood westerns may be surprised to learn that many western towns had strict gun ordinances, making it illegal to carry guns in town. People entering the town were required to surrender their firearms to the sheriff. In fact, a story that has come to epitomize the violence of the Wild West involved a conflict over such a law. When Virgil Earp, along with his brothers Morgan and Wyatt and their friend Doc Holliday, confronted five cowboys in the city of Tombstone over carrying firearms in town, violence erupted. This incident became known as the gunfight at the OK corral. Yet it’s interesting to note that even in this most famous gunfight of the violent West, only three people were killed.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West | History| Smithsonian Magazine

“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part,” says Winkler. “Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”

Could the "Wild West" be a rough and dangerous place and time to exist? Yes, definitely, especially if happened to be where there was either something like the gold rush happening or near the territories where the Native Americans were being pushed off of. But was it anything like the myths and legends portray it? No, definitely not.
Click to expand...

Americans' knowledge of history is absolutely pathetic, as is their idolaztion of fake tough guys like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
23,075
5,557
146
igor_kavinski said:
www.npr.org

The Senate gun bill would close the 'boyfriend loophole.' Here's what that means

Federal law prevents some convicted domestic abusers from owning a gun, depending on their relationship to the victim. The new gun safety bill would expand that definition to include dating partners.
www.npr.org www.npr.org



Woman saying that the fear of women acting disingenuously is unfounded? How naive of her to not figure out that some women will start abusing this law now precisely because it exists?

Female domestic abusers: "I will report you for abuse and take your gun rights away, Bitchhhhh!"

Amber Heards everywhere will rejoice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's just let women keep getting murdered by their fucked in the head bf/husband/etc, we've got to protect the poor guys that are getting so unfairly maligned!
 
I

igor_kavinski

Lifer
Jul 27, 2020
16,326
10,337
106
Everybody hates the police and no one wants to trust their own military outside their door. Great world we live in!
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
News says the Uvalde police chief is leaving his position on the city council. Which really doesnt mean much to me, but I guess its newsworthy. It certainly doesnt mean anybody is admitting they did something wrong during the shooting.
 
T

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
[DHT]Osiris said:
Fucking ridiculous, cold blooded execution, idgaf what the contact was initially made for. Every one with a gun drawn should be convicted of homicide.
Click to expand...
The video is absolutely horrifying. Although, I will admit that after the decision is made to use deadly force it doesn't really matter to many how many bullets go flying, dead is dead. Obviously I'm ignoring the chance he could possibly survive a few hits, but I think it's somewhat reasonable to be reductive here.

The bigger question, to me, is was the use of deadly force justified. Reporting is that the victim fired at police from his car and this is apparently on video, a firearm and casing were also found in the car. So it may have been reasonable to assume he was armed and had intention to use a weapon against police ("again").

So this looks horrible, and while I think 60 bullet sounds is absolutely insane... I'm not sure how much the number... matters? Other than emotionally.

Of course I wish this young man was not killed. Some of the reporting makes me wonder if this was some weird suicide by cop. New gun, not known to be a gun guy, one round only, fired at police, gf just died the week prior, gold ring found with the gun in the car.

Tragedy.
 
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,106
12,209
146
TheVrolok said:
The video is absolutely horrifying. Although, I will admit that after the decision is made to use deadly force it doesn't really matter to many how many bullets go flying, dead is dead. Obviously I'm ignoring the chance he could possibly survive a few hits, but I think it's somewhat reasonable to be reductive here.

The bigger question, to me, is was the use of deadly force justified. Reporting is that the victim fired at police from his car and this is apparently on video, a firearm and casing were also found in the car. So it may have been reasonable to assume he was armed and had intention to use a weapon against police ("again").

So this looks horrible, and while I think 60 bullet sounds is absolutely insane... I'm not sure how much the number... matters? Other than emotionally.

Of course I wish this young man was not killed. Some of the reporting makes me wonder if this was some weird suicide by cop. New gun, not known to be a gun guy, one round only, fired at police, gf just died the week prior, gold ring found with the gun in the car.

Tragedy.
Click to expand...
It's not the job of the police to determine that he did indeed fire, that is for the courts to decide. If they have the ability to retain him without deadly force they have an obligation to do so. The fact they didn't even try should be criminal.
 
T

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,076
136
[DHT]Osiris said:
It's not the job of the police to determine that he did indeed fire, that is for the courts to decide. If they have the ability to retain him without deadly force they have an obligation to do so. The fact they didn't even try should be criminal.
Click to expand...
Reporting is that an officer saw him turn abruptly and reach for his waist (I mean, of course someone said that as is always the case), after apparently firing in officers and bailing from his car wearing a ski mask.

Would the officers have a reasonable fear for their lives? (the standard they currently have to meet)

Would it make a difference if he was shot once and killed rather than 60 times?

To be clear, again, I think this is pretty insane, but I think taking a step back and playing Devil's advocate in these situations is incredibly important.
 
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,106
12,209
146
TheVrolok said:
Would the officers have a reasonable fear for their lives?
Click to expand...
If so, why were they pursuing?

TheVrolok said:
Would it make a difference if he was shot once and killed rather than 60 times?
Click to expand...
Sure, it might mean only one officer was either under trained or incapable of the job, rather than many/all of them.

TheVrolok said:
To be clear, again, I think this is pretty insane, but I think taking a step back and playing Devil's advocate in these situations is incredibly important.
Click to expand...
Alright, assuming they thought he was armed and dangerous, there's protocols for that which do not include pursuing the perp through an open field with no cover in the middle of the night before opening fire from a dozen different angles.

Fuck, what was behind the target? Did they punch any 9mm's through any baby cradles in that flurry?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom