• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Happy Birthday!! 4 dead, 20+ injured in ‘Bama.

As always when you look at death by firearms you mix suicides and homicides and get a confused picture.
Yes, it is a muddled picture because lots of people don't realize that a majority of gun related firearm deaths are intentionally self-inflicted. To be clear, this shouldn't be used to support firearm ownership.
The point is the forces behind suicide are very different than the forces behind murder. They are two very different problems with very different solutions.
Not really because the issue can arise after getting the gun(s) making the massacre or suicide a fait accompli.

Of course with recent massacres, these people are buying the guns with the intent of killing as many as they can. And are being allowed to!
 
Of course with recent massacres, these people are buying the guns with the intent of killing as many as they can. And are being allowed to!
Is not mass killing the whole point? Our country has lax gun laws for a reason, and it isn't really about home defense nor ever was.
 
As always when you look at death by firearms you mix suicides and homicides and get a confused picture.
Yes, it is a muddled picture because lots of people don't realize that a majority of gun related firearm deaths are intentionally self-inflicted. To be clear, this shouldn't be used to support firearm ownership.
The point is the forces behind suicide are very different than the forces behind murder. They are two very different problems with very different solutions.
Not really because the issue can arise after getting the gun(s) making the massacre or suicide a fait accompli.

Of course with recent massacres, these people are buying the guns with the intent of killing as many as they can. And are being allowed to!
Not to mention that the forces behind the majority are extremely similar as far as the all-important central fact: the majority of both happen during periods of abnormal distress, and they happen because access to guns within the distress period is available.

What causes the distress is unimportant to the fact that it is both transient, and abnormal, in most cases.

When the distress fails to be either transient or abnormal, we reach a point of "premeditation", where we both accept people can claim responsibility, and that people can be held as responsible for their own decisions.
 
Not that I expect anything to ever be done about it, but there are obviously way too many people who can't control their emotions who own guns. There was a murder in this week at a baby shower. Apparently, two men started arguing and one pulled out his gun and killed the other one. His girlfriend was some sort of accomplice, although the article that I read didn't explain exactly what she did to be arrested for assault. People shoot each other over traffic incidents, and other petty things. If people all had control of their emotions and didn't over react, like the old, obviously racist man, who shot the young black teenager who rang his doorbell or the incident that I think happened last night when a group of young women pulled into the wrong driveway by mistake and just as they were turning around, one was shot and killed by the home owner....It's insane that so many emotionally unstable people have guns. And yes! Anyone who shoots someone over a minor incident is too emotionally unstable to have a gun. WTF is wrong with people!
 
Perhaps a steady diet of "They're comin to getcha!" delivered by certain media outlets is winding some people up so tight that they're little more than walking trigger fingers.
 
I note in Louisiana, the dumbass politicians are finally beginning to wake up. People carry guns in their cars. Car burglers love this. Breaking into a car and finding a gun is always a welcome prize. So there is a promised crackdown on fools who leave guns in their cars for the thugs and robbers. How this will get passed over gun whackjobs shrieking remains to be seen. And of course we will have the problem of a moron having a gun in his car stolen not reporting that to the cops.
 
If God had meant for us to have guns, we would have been born with them.
You've left an obvious opening for a joke there, but under the circumstances I'm not in the mood for jest.

When will Americans tire of this?
When bullets become as effective for combat as the steam engine is today for car races.
Technology / material science will eventually bring us to a point where certain types of physical threats are no threat at all.
i.e. clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy.. a personal force field as trivial to "wear" as deodorant.... Like the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
... it is a problem that we will never directly solve... it will just organically go away - like the horse and buggy.
 
I note in Louisiana, the dumbass politicians are finally beginning to wake up. People carry guns in their cars. Car burglers love this. Breaking into a car and finding a gun is always a welcome prize. So there is a promised crackdown on fools who leave guns in their cars for the thugs and robbers. How this will get passed over gun whackjobs shrieking remains to be seen. And of course we will have the problem of a moron having a gun in his car stolen not reporting that to the cops.
I'm not clear on what they are changing.. what are they "cracking down on"? Your car is your private property, no different than the private property that is your house. You can store a gun in your car, just like in your house, and it is not "concealed"... it is "stored". If you are allowed to "possess" then you are allowed to "store". Cars get broken into, houses get broken into... PEOPLE get robbed.... so what are they "fixing"? Are they cracking down on car break-ins in general? That would be great.
 
We need more guns!
Obviously, if everyone had brought their piece to the party they might have kept the body count down. No excuse - no permits needed.
Don’t leave home without it!
Looks like a gang shooting to me. Not that the dead were necessarily gang related (bangers are not known to be great shots) but some at that party most likely were.

Also, they found casings from handgun ammo at the scene. Which means no so-called "assault weapons".
Dadeville shooting: Investigators find handgun ammo at scene; hospitals treat teen victims
Not that Dems are likely to drop that particular idée fixe anytime soon.

The most tragic thing is that one of four fatalities was the brother of the girl who celebrated 16th birthday at the party.
All 4 young victims killed at an Alabama Sweet 16 party are identified as investigators scramble to find the assailant

It reminds me of a case in Douglasville (about 20 miles west of Atlanta) where likewise a party full of teens was shot up - by other teens.
4 arrests made in Douglas County birthday party shooting that killed teens
I think the culprits going to be similar in this case as well.
 
Imagine it is 2 months before the presidential election. Gun control has been a highly contensious subject between Trump and Biden. And then we have 2 or 3 horrendous mass shootings. And no good man with a gun. Maybe then......
Are you saying Dems are going to MIHOP an "October surprise" mass shooting, or what exactly are you saying?
lenin.gif
... I am the walrus.
 
If God had meant for us to have guns, we would have been born with them.
Half of us were! :)
rifle-fun.gif
 
i.e. clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy
It seems unlikely that we will ever produce materials that disobey the laws of thermodynamics.

People have this odd idea that anything they can imagine will someday be achievable by technology, but technology isn't magic, and scientific advances don't make new things possible - quite the opposite, science is the process of whittling down all of the imaginable things into the tiny subset of actually achievable things. Science doesn't make more things possible, it just makes it easier to sort the possible from the impossible.

And "clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy" lies squarely in the 'impossible' camp.

Weapons don't become obsolete because they are less deadly; They become obsolete because they're replaced by weapons that are equally deadly, but faster, easier, or and/or cheaper to use.

You would still die if someone shot you with a matchlock musket, or a crossbow bolt, or an arrow fired from a bow. Those weapons have largely disappeared not because they stopped being lethal, but because there was something more effectively and/or efficiently lethal to supplant them.

If guns go out of use, it won't be because they're no longer effective. It will be because somebody invents something even more dangerous.
 
People leave guns in parked cars. Theives break out car windows and steal stuff. Guns are a prize, easily sold or traded for meth or crack. Many guns used by robbers are stolen guns. Louisiana is now #2 in murders. This bad habit is a problem. Hence the crackdown. No more thoughts and prayers here.
 
Biden called on Congress to “require safe storage of firearms, require background checks for all gun sales, eliminate gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
I think more robust background checks, gun licensing and liability insurance (including for things like improper storage leading to easy thefts) are good points to address. Note that we do not know who the shooters are nor how they acquired their weapons, so none of these might have been effective in this case.
I disagree about liability for manufacturers. We do not get to sue Ford if somebody commits a crime with an Explorer, so why should we get to sue Smith & Wesson if somebody commits a crime with an M&P Shield?
If anything, "strict liability" should be abolished for all goods, as well as the perverse idea of "punitive damages". It puts way too much power in random juries. If a company is not breaking any laws, I do not see why they should pay (especially pay in excess of damages) just because some jury feels they should.
And so-called "assault weapons" are not even involved here. Just like in vast majority of homicides. So I think this Dem obsession needs to go. It merely distracts from more fruitful avenues of reform.
Goodman said guns and violence are not a frequent presence in Dadeville. He said trying to control guns would prove as futile as trying to control illegal drugs.
Or legal drugs for that matter. It is the same impulse that gave us Prohibition. Some people do bad things, so let's ban it for everyone.
southernhybrid said:
So, why the fuck are we trying to control illegal drugs, if guns and drugs are both impossible to control?
Aren't many libs in favor of legalizing all drugs, not just weed? I think full legalization goes too far, but I also think the punitive approach to possession/addiction is counterproductive even for crack, meth, fentanyl etc.
 
i.e. clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy
It seems unlikely that we will ever produce materials that disobey the laws of thermodynamics.

People have this odd idea that anything they can imagine will someday be achievable by technology, but technology isn't magic, and scientific advances don't make new things possible - quite the opposite, science is the process of whittling down all of the imaginable things into the tiny subset of actually achievable things. Science doesn't make more things possible, it just makes it easier to sort the possible from the impossible.

And "clothing made out of a material that makes bullets bounce off back where they came from without imparting any energy" lies squarely in the 'impossible' camp.

Weapons don't become obsolete because they are less deadly; They become obsolete because they're replaced by weapons that are equally deadly, but faster, easier, or and/or cheaper to use.

You would still die if someone shot you with a matchlock musket, or a crossbow bolt, or an arrow fired from a bow. Those weapons have largely disappeared not because they stopped being lethal, but because there was something more effectively and/or efficiently lethal to supplant them.

If guns go out of use, it won't be because they're no longer effective. It will be because somebody invents something even more dangerous.
I was suggesting that its possible for technology to not replace guns with a more lethal solution, but that technology would make physical threats obsolete... and yes, that would inspire new "non-physical" lethal weapon development (i.e. phasers).
I am not so idealistic to believe that just because a thing can be imagined, it can be made real. I'm not a child.
I AM, however, quite aware that what we believe today to be "impossible" could one day be possible.
Faster than sound travel through the atmosphere was thought to impossible, as it violated the laws of aerodynamics AS THEY WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME.
We may never pass through space faster than the speed of light, but that does not mean that faster-than-light travel is not possible - one "simply" must find a way to travel without "traversing"... as "easy" as changing your frame of reference from 3 dimensions to 4.. and then just "step" over a million light years away in an instant....
No, we cannot break the laws... but we have been pretty good at getting around them, so far.
less "fancy" - this "bulletproof" material can simply convert the energy of the bullet in a way that is safe for the wearer.... like wearing 10 inch thick high speed steel armor.. except it is only a millimeter thick and super comfy and workable.
There is a substance called Oobleck - it is a liquid until something hits it with force, then it acts like a solid. This concept, taken another level.
Anyway... nothing is impossible, if reframed.
 
Here are states ranked by death by firearms.
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Wyoming
4. Missouri
5. Alabama
Note that those states (except for WY, which Loren already said is due to suicides, not homicides) are also those with highest black populations.
African_Americans_by_state.svg.png

Given that blacks are ~5-6x more likely to commit homicides, according to FBI data, that correspondence is hardly a coincidence.
Now of course, many variables affect the homicide rates. But this is a major one I think.

Right wingers love to bellow about Chicago. Illinois is no. 13, Arkansas is no. 8.
You are conflating things. Chicago is a city, Illinois is an entire state. And "right wingers" are rightly to bellow about Chiraq. It does not have the highest per capita homicide rate for US cities, but it (#3) has the highest homicide rate among very big US cities, much bigger than NYC (#1) or LA (#2) or Houston (#4).
FWcvbfFUsAATiKG.jpg:large

Note that the cities in this list tend to have high black population and Dem leadership, often unchallenged Dem leadership for decades.
Somebody shove a microphone in Governor Sandra Hucklebee's face and ask what she is planning to do about that.
I do not know much about AR politics, but is there any indication she is not doing what she can? Unlike leadership in cities like Chicago that just elected an anti-police mayor and that has a DA (Kim Foxx) that is against prosecuting many felonies.
 
Biden called on Congress to “require safe storage of firearms, require background checks for all gun sales, eliminate gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.”
I think more robust background checks, gun licensing and liability insurance (including for things like improper storage leading to easy thefts) are good points to address. Note that we do not know who the shooters are nor how they acquired their weapons, so none of these might have been effective in this case.
I disagree about liability for manufacturers. We do not get to sue Ford if somebody commits a crime with an Explorer, so why should we get to sue Smith & Wesson if somebody commits a crime with an M&P Shield?
If anything, "strict liability" should be abolished for all goods, as well as the perverse idea of "punitive damages". It puts way too much power in random juries. If a company is not breaking any laws, I do not see why they should pay (especially pay in excess of damages) just because some jury feels they should.
And so-called "assault weapons" are not even involved here. Just like in vast majority of homicides. So I think this Dem obsession needs to go. It merely distracts from more fruitful avenues of reform.
Goodman said guns and violence are not a frequent presence in Dadeville. He said trying to control guns would prove as futile as trying to control illegal drugs.
Or legal drugs for that matter. It is the same impulse that gave us Prohibition. Some people do bad things, so let's ban it for everyone.
southernhybrid said:
So, why the fuck are we trying to control illegal drugs, if guns and drugs are both impossible to control?
Aren't many libs in favor of legalizing all drugs, not just weed? I think full legalization goes too far, but I also think the punitive approach to possession/addiction is counterproductive even for crack, meth, fentanyl etc.
I agree that drugs should at the very least be decriminalized. I just found it ironic that a sheriff in a hick town compared how difficult it is to control illegal drugs to how difficult it would be to control guns if we had stronger gun control laws. We lock up an enormous number of people for using drugs that usually only harm the user, if that, but people like the sheriff in the article, don't see any point in trying to do a better job at keeping guns out of the hands of those who are not emotionally stable.

Over 70% of Americans want better gun control laws, yet those in the minority have no problem with most anyone, other than felons, owning guns legally. Is it a good idea for an 85 or 90 year old to own a gun? I wondered if the racist who shot the young teen was a bit senile. I say that because there is an old woman on my street who once asked my husband, who was helping get a petition signed to limit some development in a forested area nearby, if the petition was to get rid of the Black neighbors on our street. She was obviously racist but it sounded to me like she was a bit senile as well. Would we want someone like her to own a gun? My nutty anxiety prone neighbor, who worries about crazy things and is almost delusional at times, has told me a few times she would like a gun. I've always been able to talk her out of it. But, the fact is that she could walk into a gun store and legally purchase a gun. I also have a Trump supporter friend, age 71, who has multiple serious health problems, can barely walk, etc. who owns a gun. I hope she never shoots someone who knocks at her door or drives into her driveway. Her 18 year old grandson lives with her too. Hope he doesn't have access to her gun. I'm just giving personal examples of people who own guns, who in my opinion, aren't emotionally and/or physically capable of using them safely.

And, don't even get me to mention the gun show loophole. If you're a licensed gun dealer, you need to do a quick background check before you sell a gun, but if you're just some guy, there is no need for any background check or paperwork for that matter. We register cars! Can't we at least try to register something that has one dangerous, primary purpose!

I once saw a man who looked to be in his 80s, wearing a side arm. He was on 02, and in a wheelchair. Since he had some family members with him, my hope was that they made sure the gun wasn't loaded. But, what if it was? Is it a good idea to have someone like that in possession of a gun? Or why is it legal in many states for an 18 year old to be in possession of a gun, even when the age he can legally buy it is 21? Our fucking brains aren't even mature until our mid-20s. People from 18 to 25 often do all kinds of crazy risky things. I know because while I never hurt anyone, I took plenty of risks myself when I was in that age range. I know nothing will change as long as the GOP has so much power and the courts are controlled by power hungry, frequently corrupt justices. This country is going down in so many ways, but I honestly never thought the time would come when people killed each other because they were so hateful or emotionally unstable.

It never used to be like this when I was growing up. How did we get to this place where people settle arguments by shooting each other, or where people are so paranoid that if they see a stranger at their front door or in their driveway, they shoot them. Btw, the young woman who was murdered was white, just like her killer. Race doesn't always have a thing to do with this mindless killings.

This isn't all directed at you Derec. I just kept thinking of things regarding guns that really piss me off and were worth a rant! :rant::rant:
 
Not that I expect anything to ever be done about it, but there are obviously way too many people who can't control their emotions who own guns. There was a murder in this week at a baby shower. Apparently, two men started arguing and one pulled out his gun and killed the other one. His girlfriend was some sort of accomplice, although the article that I read didn't explain exactly what she did to be arrested for assault. People shoot each other over traffic incidents, and other petty things. If people all had control of their emotions and didn't over react, like the old, obviously racist man, who shot the young black teenager who rang his doorbell or the incident that I think happened last night when a group of young women pulled into the wrong driveway by mistake and just as they were turning around, one was shot and killed by the home owner....It's insane that so many emotionally unstable people have guns. And yes! Anyone who shoots someone over a minor incident is too emotionally unstable to have a gun. WTF is wrong with people!
As an outside looking in with permanent sadness at you lot it has been obvious to me for decades that you have far too many people who should not be allowed to own or even hold a weapon and you let them do so.
Why do you hate each other so much?
You shoot first and don't ask questions afterwards.
 
Back
Top Bottom