Multiple people shot at grocery store in upstate New York, police say one suspect tak

[Dutch Uncle]

Laws must be evenly applied to be just. If they are unjust then I am under no obligation to follow them.

Something the WOKE might have learned.

Never did.

Are you going to attack a Taiwanese church to make your point?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Are you going to attack a Taiwanese church to make your point?

Pricks like you are approaching a reckoning.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Pricks like you are approaching a reckoning.

Who will do the reckoning? Crazed PRC agents attacking innocent people?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
Yep, just what we need is more guns out there, this is what happens when any dimwit or idiot with a beef has easy access to the gun of his choice

As I noted earlier, getting so that any interaction with anybody anywhere is dangerous given there is a good chance the other individual is packing

Guns don't kill people, Democrat run cities kill people.

I can't believe you trotted out that incredibly stupid mantra from the LaPierre era NRA ... with a MAGA spin added.

Your boy lived out his Turner Diaries fantasy... he thinks he's a martyr to "the cause", live streaming his atrocity to show the way. All that is going to get him is life in prison. He chose a weapon that would be most efficient...a weapon that was previously banned on the 1994 AWB. He chose the weapon to efficiently kill people. Without that weapon, his body count wouldn't exist.

And newsflash for ya, genius. Murders, rape, pedophiles, gang killings, home to mass shooters, etc., happen in and originate in red states too. Get real and stop making excuses for a POS racist murderer.

 

[Taichiliberal]

MAGA is doing cartwheels and high-fives in their MAGA meetings because of the massacre.

1/3 are outright
1/3 agree in secret
1/3 are appalled, because they stupidly think that their screeds don't lead to this.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're putting words in my mouth, especially since I ALSO advocated national gun registry across the board. Just because I didn't say, "let's put more $$ and improvement in our mental health institutions" means that I'm against it or dismiss it.

Remember when the guy who shot up the Virginia Tech school? He already was on the docket for previous mental health issues, yet the lag time from the hospital or doctor's office to the background check done by the gun seller fell through the cracks. And of course, you know how the gunners and the gunner lobby just hate a universal background check linked to a mental health data base (privacy issues - like they give a damn when it comes to abortion - but I digress).

I say all three suggestions are the best way to curtail this tragic syndrome in our nation. I don't think you'll disagree on that.

Disagreed; you were quoting the standard Democrat mantra on gun-control and I was reiterating the standard result of the Democratic agenda.

All of the mass shooters of note were known to be wackadoodles: Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanzo, Nikolas Cruz and James Hodgkinson to name a few. Now add Payton Gendron to that list.

IIRC, a "mass shooting" is three or more people shot with a BB gun or larger so gang-bangers are included in the numbers, but it's shootings like this that cause a public outcry and which the Democrats use to push their gun control agenda. Why is banning guns their FIRST plan and not better mental health care?

Why are nutjobs like those listed above allowed to have firearms? Why were they not treated before they committed mass murder and ruined their own lives?

No I did not...you're obviously trying to pick a fight where there is none.

There have been about 128 mass shootings in America since 1982. Here's the breakdown https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

There has been advocacy for gun control regarding "gang violence" forever ... the most notable faces were Community activists, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. But it took Brady getting caught in crossfire to get any real Capitol Hill action going. Do the research if you don't believe me. Sad, isn't it?

Like it or not, the proof is in the pudding. Since the sunset of the 1994 AWB, you've had weapons that were on that list purchased and used in multiple mass shootings. Yes, other weapons could and can and have been used in murders and such...but you can't deny the reality.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No I did not...you're obviously trying to pick a fight where there is none.

There have been about 128 mass shootings in America since 1982. Here's the breakdown https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

There has been advocacy for gun control regarding "gang violence" forever ... the most notable faces were Community activists, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. But it took Brady getting caught in crossfire to get any real Capitol Hill action going. Do the research if you don't believe me. Sad, isn't it?

Like it or not, the proof is in the pudding. Since the sunset of the 1994 AWB, you've had weapons that were on that list purchased and used in multiple mass shootings. Yes, other weapons could and can and have been used in murders and such...but you can't deny the reality.

Banning guns instead of focusing on the mental health aspects is the standard Democratic answer.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You don’t get to decide whether we need more or less guns out there, Anchovies.

The Second Amendment has already decided that issue and “DC vs, Heller” codified it.

The far left Democrats own violence in America with their riots, looting, burning, assaults and murders.

Poor Anchovies.

Man, you gunners are just a broken record. The reality is that DC vs. Heller did NOT prevent the US Congress from passing laws that prevent specific weapons from circulating in the public forum. That's why you don't have full automatic weapons, military issue weapons, or a WW2 .50 caliber mounted on top of your garage.

Your last sentence is pure MAGA BS. Gendron used a weapon that was previously on the banned....he chose that weapon for it's effectiveness..just like a lot of recent mass shooters chose the AR-15 .... because these weapons do exactly what they are designed to do, which is giving an amateur high accuracy and easy trigger pull/low recoil when assaulting a group. Deal with it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Republicans, indeed, are part of the problem but the Democrats are part of the problem too because of their focus as you pointed out. The Demoratic solution to gang-bangers and nujobs are gun banning.

IMO, that's as stupid as solving the illegal immigration problem with a fucking wall.

Gun control is NOT just about banning guns.

For years I've stated that if guns were treated like cars in this country, you would have a great reduction in gun related murders. Gunners, the NRA and the manufacturers are seriously against universal background checks, registration and data bases. Go figure.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Gun control is NOT just about banning guns.

For years I've stated that if guns were treated like cars in this country, you would have a great reduction in gun related murders. Gunners, the NRA and the manufacturers are seriously against universal background checks, registration and data bases. Go figure.

Thanks for admitting it includes banning guns.

The Democrats don't give a shit about Robin Williams, Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain because they didn't kill themselves with a gun.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Correct. Shooting for the center of mass is the commonly trained target area since, if the shooter misses a little left, right, up or down, they will still hit something. This is why the Hollywood fable telling of "shoot the gun out of their hand" is stupid. Anyone who has fired a pistol at 25 yards quickly learns why.

My guess is that Officer Salter was less than 15 yards from the WSE, quickly fired off three accurate shots before being murdered. My advice is two shots to center of mass then automatically aim for the groin area (larger than the head/shoulders area) and fire two rounds there. This tactic can be practiced at the range. Obviously if body armor is suspected, go for the groin area first. Once the WSE is down, it's easier to go for the head/shoulders. Best to keep shooting until they stop moving.

If nothing else, hitting meat will distract the WSE from murdering others and, even if they run away, cause them to bleed out. Civilians aren't required to abide by the Geneva Convention, so hollow points, soft points, jacketed hollow points, etc are legal to use and highly recommended. The bad news about such ammo is that it's great for wounding/killing, but not for penetrating windshields, light body armor, walls, etc.

And this would've, could've, should've, can be, scenarios is just that. Each real life event when analyzed has different twists to it ... just look at all the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

The "good guy with a gun" mindset is not the answer....what happened in Buffalo proves that. If the Homeland Security jockeys spent more time on these race war advocating websites (regardless of race, creed or color) instead of how many folk support Code Pink ... if the politicians that mouth variations of "white replacement" and such bilge are called out for what they are, things might bet better.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And this would've, could've, should've, can be, scenarios is just that. Each real life event when analyzed has different twists to it ... just look at all the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

The "good guy with a gun" mindset is not the answer....what happened in Buffalo proves that. If the Homeland Security jockeys spent more time on these race war advocating websites (regardless of race, creed or color) instead of how many folk support Code Pink ... if the politicians that mouth variations of "white replacement" and such bilge are called out for what they are, things might bet better.

Banning isn't the answer. No more than banning drugs or banning abortion is the answer. Depriving people of freedoms isn't the path we should be traveling.

 

[Taichiliberal]

riginally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No I did not...you're obviously trying to pick a fight where there is none.

There have been about 128 mass shootings in America since 1982. Here's the breakdown https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/

There has been advocacy for gun control regarding "gang violence" forever ... the most notable faces were Community activists, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. But it took Brady getting caught in crossfire to get any real Capitol Hill action going. Do the research if you don't believe me. Sad, isn't it?

Like it or not, the proof is in the pudding. Since the sunset of the 1994 AWB, you've had weapons that were on that list purchased and used in multiple mass shootings. Yes, other weapons could and can and have been used in murders and such...but you can't deny the reality.

Banning guns instead of focusing on the mental health aspects is the standard Democratic answer.

Repeating yourself and ignoring the historical counter to your previous whole statements doesn't make you right. This was already addressed.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And this would've, could've, should've, can be, scenarios is just that. Each real life event when analyzed has different twists to it ... just look at all the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

The "good guy with a gun" mindset is not the answer....what happened in Buffalo proves that. If the Homeland Security jockeys spent more time on these race war advocating websites (regardless of race, creed or color) instead of how many folk support Code Pink ... if the politicians that mouth variations of "white replacement" and such bilge are called out for what they are, things might bet better.

Banning isn't the answer. No more than banning drugs or banning abortion is the answer. Depriving people of freedoms isn't the path we should be traveling.

You need to get off this faux panic BS that the old NRA and gun manufacturers has been shoveling for years. The Bushmaster, the AR-15....weapons on the old 1994 AWB list that the GOP voted against reinstating in 2004. Even when that list was in effect, you had a PLETHORA of handguns, rifles, semi-automatics available to the general public...any purchases prior to the ban could be kept. So spare me this "depriving of freedoms" bullshit. You can't have a military issue weapon, you can't mount a WW2 .50 caliber on your garage. But you sure as hell kill someone dead with a .38 revolver or hunt efficiently with a bolt-action hunting rifle. A matter of fact, a matter of reality. This "I want it so I should have it" attitude is childish...with the possible deadly results.

Your comparison to illegal drug use is absurd. Apples and oranges.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Gun control is NOT just about banning guns.

For years I've stated that if guns were treated like cars in this country, you would have a great reduction in gun related murders. Gunners, the NRA and the manufacturers are seriously against universal background checks, registration and data bases. Go figure.

Thanks for admitting it includes banning guns.

The Democrats don't give a shit about Robin Williams, Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain because they didn't kill themselves with a gun.

C'mon Dutch, don't go silly on me. The chronology of the posts shows that I stated previously that gun control was not solely about banning guns, as you insisted. I logically and factually proved otherwise.

Your last sentence is pure smoke screen.....a personal accusation based solely on your opinion. You do this dodge instead of just conceding a point, which in this case AGREES with you in part. Your hang up about guns is just that, a hang up that to date has not be proven out despite decades of rhetoric from NRA/gun manufacturing flunkies.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Repeating yourself and ignoring the historical counter to your previous whole statements doesn't make you right. This was already addressed.

Fine. Deadlock and no compromise as usual. My vote cancels out yours resulting in maintaining the status quo.

 

[Althea]

Brandishing is against the law. Do you really want to set someone up who bought a rifle and is busted carrying it to their car?

I use my SKS and AK-47 for hunting. You can be sure the magazines are 2/3s full on the AK. LOL

Transporting a weapon isn't a problem. Is brandishing against the law in all states? Why do I see militia members parading around with them all the time?

I'm not a hunter. I'm a fisheman. But I do see a lot of commentary by hunters, about those who would need high capacity magazines for hunting.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Transporting a weapon isn't a problem. Is brandishing against the law in all states? Why do I see militia members parading around with them all the time?

I'm not a hunter. I'm a fisheman. But I do see a lot of commentary by hunters, about those who would need high capacity magazines for hunting.

You want to charge the "militia members" for transporting or carrying a firearm but not the grandpa leaving Walmart with a rifle? I'm not a lawyer but that seems difficult to put into writing.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/general-terms/brandishing/
Brandishing is defined by Merriam-Webster as to shake or wave (something such as a weapon) menacingly or exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner. In most states, “brandishing” is not a legally defined term. In fact, only five states (Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia and West Virginia) currently have laws on the books that directly reference brandishing. When it comes to concealed carry, many states have their own definitions and may refer to brandishing as “Defensive Display,” “Improper Exhibition of a Weapon” or “Unlawful Display.” Actions from resting your hand on the grip of your pistol or knife or sweeping your cover garment aside to expose your concealed carry weapon may be considered brandishing.

It is important to understand that the lack of a formal legal definition of brandishing does not mean that brandishing a firearm, whether accidentally or with the intention of intimidating, will not result in criminal charges. Brandishing a firearm may fall under other state laws, such as aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, improper use of a firearm, menacing, intimidating or disorderly conduct. Criminal legal consequences may vary from misdemeanor citations to felony charges based on the state or jurisdiction that you are in and the specifics of your particular incident. Depending on your state, additional penalties may incur if your brandishing incident occurs in the presence of a law enforcement officer, public official or emergency medical responder.

 

[Althea]

You want to charge the "militia members" for transporting or carrying a firearm but not the grandpa leaving Walmart with a rifle? I'm not a lawyer but that seems difficult to put into writing.

Once again, you're twisting yourself into knots. I'm going to bet that grandpa didn't load his weapon on the way out of Walmart.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Brandishing is against the law. Do you really want to set someone up who bought a rifle and is busted carrying it to their car?

I use my SKS and AK-47 for hunting. You can be sure the magazines are 2/3s full on the AK. LOL

That's not legal in Texas, bitch.

I take that back! It IS.

It's not legal in FL.