• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Semi-naked gunman Travis Reinking kills 4 at TN Waffle House

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Thebobo said:
Can't believe they haven't caught him, maybe squeezed into a hole and killed himself?
Click to expand...

He's just in incognito mode and not on the radar.

m6od8Nd.jpg
 
Commodus said:
Sure you did, you just used roundabout language to express it. You thought that having someone else with a gun there would likely have prevented it or cut it short; ergo, you believe the solution is to arm more people.

Instead of treating people as "sitting ducks" because they don't have guns, how about we create a culture where having a gun isn't seen as important? Plenty of other countries have managed that. Are you saying the US is too warlike and incompetent to move away from a gun-obsessed culture?
Click to expand...
Serious question do you think that someone's mental illness is restricted to what the country's culture is? I don't think the US is too incompetent to move away from it but we may be too warlike (warlike being too independently minded).
 
Commodus said:
Mental illness isn't usually defined by a country's culture; coping with that illness by resorting to gun violence, however, is.
Click to expand...

Thank you for summarizing that in a much better way than I was able to. I tried about 6 different responses but none of them were as on on point as yours.
 
Just another "new normal" day where the NRA and the usual assortment of paranoid gun freaks would like us to believe that random multiple killings of the innocent by AR type rifles are no big deal, nothing to get upset about (due to how frequent these killings are) and absolutely not the time for talking about more stringent gun control laws (that might affect the sales of firearms in a negative way.)
 
tweaker2 said:
Just another "new normal" day where the NRA and the usual assortment of paranoid gun freaks would like us to believe that random multiple killings of the innocent by AR type rifles are no big deal, nothing to get upset about (due to how frequent these killings are) and absolutely not the time for talking about more stringent gun control laws (that might affect the sales of firearms in a negative way.)
Click to expand...
How dare mentally stable, law abiding citizens want their rights.
 
tweaker2 said:
Just another "new normal" day where the NRA and the usual assortment of paranoid gun freaks would like us to believe that random multiple killings of the innocent by AR type rifles are no big deal, nothing to get upset about (due to how frequent these killings are) and absolutely not the time for talking about more stringent gun control laws (that might affect the sales of firearms in a negative way.)
Click to expand...

propose any gun law you like, even pass it. just apply the same law to the rights listed in the constitution.
 
Bird222 said:
How dare mentally stable, law abiding citizens want their rights.
Click to expand...

Good point, just not the appropriate one for a response. Having a right and defending it also includes having the willingness to become a participating member of the solution and not part of the problems that owning guns without having sensible laws that prevent so many of these frequent tragedies from happening. So are you a part of the solution or a part of the problem? Or do you even care? 😉

mdram said:
propose any gun law you like, even pass it. just apply the same law to the rights listed in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Also a good point. Let's start with how those reactionary right wing Supreme Court justices interpreted the 2A in favor of the gun manufacturers and to the detriment and sorrow of all of those numerous loved ones that have been murdered in part from that decision. Would you be in favor of whatever a liberal Supreme Court majority may reverse that the right wing majority decided upon was in their narrow minded corrupted view the "correct" interpretation? Or would you be as complacent as you seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong pls) while witnessing time after time how AR type rifles are murdering hundreds of our fellow citizens?

I have accepted the fact that what the Supreme Court did at the time was based upon a very narrowly contested decision that in turn was based upon purely ideological grounds and not the literal letter of the Constitution. Were it decided with a liberal majority in place we'd have a whole 'nother world of firearms regulations that IMO would have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives that have already been sacrificed in the name of folks having the desire to possess maximum firepower without restrictions and I would have been fine with that too because I feel that whatever resulted from that "liberal" decision, I still would have my rifle, my shotgun and my revolver for personal use. But would you?
 
mdram said:
well since thats already been done......................
Click to expand...

In all honesty we can sit here and come up with a ton of new regulations but people that feel getting rid of all is the only option I don't waste my time with.. You can list off a dozen reasons why you enjoy shooting and not one that has to do with protecting yourself. They don't care..

This is why gun supporters don't compromise because the anti just doesn't care... So why bother trying to sit and have a logical talk?! You can bring up mental health being a big factor.. They don't care. Because regardless if guns are accessible mental health needs to be addressed..

And then the NRA membership goes sky high...
 
tweaker2 said:
Good point, just not the appropriate one for a response. Having a right and defending it also includes having the willingness to become a participating member of the solution and not part of the problems that owning guns without having sensible laws that prevent so many of these frequent tragedies from happening. So are you a part of the solution or a part of the problem? Or do you even care? 😉



Also a good point. Let's start with how those reactionary right wing Supreme Court justices interpreted the 2A in favor of the gun manufacturers and to the detriment and sorrow of all of those numerous loved ones that have been murdered in part from that decision. Would you be in favor of whatever a liberal Supreme Court majority may reverse that the right wing majority decided upon was in their narrow minded corrupted view the "correct" interpretation? Or would you be as complacent as you seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong pls) while witnessing time after time how AR type rifles are murdering hundreds of our fellow citizens?

I have accepted the fact that what the Supreme Court did at the time was based upon a very narrowly contested decision that in turn was based upon purely ideological grounds and not the literal letter of the Constitution. Were it decided with a liberal majority in place we'd have a whole 'nother world of firearms regulations that IMO would have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives that have already been sacrificed in the name of folks having the desire to possess maximum firepower without restrictions and I would have been fine with that too because I feel that whatever resulted from that "liberal" decision, I still would have my rifle, my shotgun and my revolver for personal use. But would you?
Click to expand...

Please put some stats to the bolded claim.
 
mdram said:
a little data from 2016 (2017 full report is not out yet)

rifle deaths - 374
knife deaths - 1604
hands/fet/ect - 656
handgun - 7105

your more likley to be beat to death or stabbed than shot with a rifle

edit for data link
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the classic SlowSpyder defense: when in doubt, pretend gun violence isn't actually that much of a problem by pointing to statistics for other deaths.

It's not just the number of people who die, it's the potential of avoiding those deaths with sensible regulation. You can't ban fists, but you can ban semi-auto rifles that serve little practical purpose besides killing humans en masse.
 
Commodus said:
Ah yes, the classic SlowSpyder defense: when in doubt, pretend gun violence isn't actually that much of a problem by pointing to statistics for other deaths.
Click to expand...
But the rabid raccoons in the woods.... They'll never voluntarily give up their metallic security blankets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top