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

Yet another shooting thread

www.clickondetroit.com

8 injured in ‘random’ shooting at Rochester Hills splash pad; shooter dead

At least nine people were injured in a shooting at a Rochester Hills splash pad on Saturday afternoon in what police called a random incident.
www.clickondetroit.com www.clickondetroit.com

ROCHESTER HILLS, Mich. — Nine people were injured, including two young children and their mother, after a shooter opened fire at a splash pad in a Detroit suburb where families gathered to escape the summer heat Saturday. Law enforcement tracked a suspect to a home, where the man died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, authorities said.

An 8-year-old boy was shot in the head and in critical condition Saturday night, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard said during a news conference. The boy's mother also was in critical condition after being wounded in the abdomen and leg, and his 4-year-old brother was in stable condition with a leg wound.

Authorities initially said they believed as many as 10 people had gunshot wounds from the shooting in Rochester Hills, but that number was revised after they checked with area hospitals.

The other six victims, all 30 or older, were in stable condition, Bouchard said. They included a husband-and-wife couple and a 78-year-old man.

The shooting happened just after 5 p.m. at a city park featuring a recreation area with a nonslip surface where people can turn on sprays and fountains of water to play in. Bouchard said the attack appeared to be random, with the shooter driving up to the park, walking to the splash pad and firing as many as 28 times, stopping multiple times to reload.
Click to expand...
 
ZiprHead said:
apnews.com

Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on rapid-fire rifle bump stocks, reopening political fight

A Texas gun shop owner challenged the ban, arguing the Justice Department wrongly classified the accessories as illegal machine guns.
apnews.com apnews.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, in a ruling that threw firearms back into the nation’s political spotlight.

The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. The decision came after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with semiautomatic rifles equipped with the accessories.

The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens killed.

The ruling thrust guns back into the center of the political conversation with an unusual twist as Democrats decried the reversal of a GOP administration’s action and many Republicans backed the ruling.

The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote, each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.
Click to expand...
Okay, Clarence is just fucking with us now.
Click to expand...
Actually, he is right. The bump stock ban was an unconstitutional end-run around the legal process.

Machine guns are defined as one pull of the trigger causing more than one bullet to be fired. Bump stocks and many other cruder approaches are based on using recoil to make the gun bounce against the trigger finger. The trigger is really being pulled multiple times--whether it's due to the finger going backwards or the gun going forwards doesn't change the basic action. It's inherently extremely inaccurate as the gun has to bounce around for the concept to work.

Changing this is the job of the legislature, not of the executive branch. Not that it would actually make much of any difference as they're easy enough to improvise.
 
Yeah, it's totally not automating the process. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
3 dead, 10 wounded, in Arkansas grocery store shooting, authorities say

Three people were killed and 10 wounded in a shooting at a grocery store in Fordyce, Arkansas, the Arkansas State Police said in a news conference Friday.

The 10 people wounded include two police officers. The suspected shooter, identified by authorities as 44-year-old Travis Eugene Posey, was also wounded and taken into custody.

Posey, a resident of New Edinburg, is expected to be charged with three counts of capital murder, with additional charges pending, according to an Arkansas State Police news release.

Police first received calls about an active shooter at the Mad Butcher grocery store at around 11:30 a.m. local time, Mike Hagar, the Secretary of Public Safety and Director of Arkansas State Police said at the news conference.

Law enforcement responded immediately and exchanged gunfire with the “lone suspect.”

The injuries to the officers and the suspect are not considered life-threatening, according to Hagar. He noted the “situation is secured …contained. There are no active threats to the community.”
Click to expand...
 
Shadowy Man said:
It doesn’t even make sense to criminalize machine guns anyway because only criminals will have machine guns.
Click to expand...
Plus it there is cost to the time and effort in enforcing the law and its punishments. Carrying the logic further, it makes no sense to make laws against anything, because criminals are going to be criminals!
 
laughing dog said:
Shadowy Man said:
It doesn’t even make sense to criminalize machine guns anyway because only criminals will have machine guns.
Click to expand...
Plus it there is cost to the time and effort in enforcing the law and its punishments. Carrying the logic further, it makes no sense to make laws against anything, because criminals are going to be criminals!
Click to expand...
Why should the rest of us have to stop at red lights when the criminals just speed right through?
 
The fallacy that if you can’t stop something 100%, then you shouldn’t bother make any effort at all, is only topped by the fallaciousness of the idea that if you diminish the total number of legal guns it won’t diminish the number of illegal guns a bit.

Even though we know that more than 10% of guns used in crimes were stolen from allegedly legal owners, and that another 75% of guns used in crimes were bought from a source other than a licensed dealer.

It just shows how shallow and performative are the arguments against gun control and diminishing the proliferation of guns.

1. Enact audits that require legal sellers to prove they are not contributing to the black market
2. Enact controls that require personal ownership to be ergulated and monitored.

And the illegal guns WILL be diminished.
 
Update on the Arkansas grocery store shooting.

Suspected Arkansas grocery store shooter was armed with pistol, 12-gauge shotgun and dozens of extra rounds, authorities say

The suspect in a mass shooting at a grocery store in Arkansas was armed with a pistol, 12-gauge shotgun and had a bandolier with dozens of extra shotgun rounds, authorities said at a news conference Sunday.

The man, identified by police as 44-year-old Travis Eugene Posey, opened fire at the Mad Butcher in Fordyce on Friday, killing four people ranging in age from 23 to 81 years old and wounding nine others.

“The suspect arrived at the Mad Butcher armed,” Secretary of Public Safety and Director of Arkansas State Police Mike Hagar said. “We believe that most, if not all the rounds, fired by the suspect were from the shotgun.”

Authorities believe the suspect “immediately began engaging victims in the parking lot after exiting his truck and then proceeded into the store,” according to Hagar.

Once inside the Mad Butcher, the suspect “was firing indiscriminately at both customers and employees,” Hagar said.

Posey is expected to be charged with four counts of capital murder, with additional charges pending, according to an Arkansas State Police news release. He is set to appear in court on Monday, Dallas County prosecutor Eric Marks said.
Click to expand...

More details in the link.
 
Rhea said:
The fallacy that if you can’t stop something 100%, then you shouldn’t bother make any effort at all, is only topped by the fallaciousness of the idea that if you diminish the total number of legal guns it won’t diminish the number of illegal guns a bit.
Click to expand...
Nobody's claiming this. Rather, we are saying the change would be small. The market for illegal guns is a lot less elastic than the market for legal guns. We have an example of this playing out now: The DEA decided to combat abuse of ADHD medicines by limiting the supply. The primary victims are the legitimate users. Or look at the war on morphine--it's made things worse by driving the market to fentanyl.

The market will react to what you do, you have to consider the end result, not merely the change you are applying.

Rhea said:
Even though we know that more than 10% of guns used in crimes were stolen from allegedly legal owners, and that another 75% of guns used in crimes were bought from a source other than a licensed dealer.
Click to expand...
"A source other than a licensed dealer" most likely means stolen. So 85% are obtained on markets that you have no power to regulate. Thus 100% "success" can alter the supply by only 15% at most.

Rhea said:
It just shows how shallow and performative are the arguments against gun control and diminishing the proliferation of guns.

1. Enact audits that require legal sellers to prove they are not contributing to the black market
2. Enact controls that require personal ownership to be ergulated and monitored.

And the illegal guns WILL be diminished.
Click to expand...
You'll have to take out an awful lot of legal guns to reduce supply of illegal ones. Why should we not believe that the primary effect is the real objective?

And note that your second objective is the gun-grabber's holy grail--a list of all the guns out there. It shows up in many guises with supposedly benign purpose.

You sound an awful lot like a Republican trying to implement reasonable abortion restrictions.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Nobody's claiming this. Rather, we are saying the change would be small.
Click to expand...
The number of illegal guns in places like the UK, where legal ownership is very tightly regulated, is fairly large. A lot of those illegal guns date from the two World Wars, when the nation was absolutely awash with firearms, and "redirecting" a pistol or rifle was fairly easy.

But the important thing about the impact of strict gun control is NOT that it reduces the number of illegally owned guns, but that it dramatically and significantly reduces their use.

A gun locked away and almost never carried, loaded, or used, is not much of a threat to anyone.

The thing you need to inflience (and strict gun control does this very well) is the desirability of carrying, or being seen with, an illegal firearm.

What you want to achieve (assuming that you want fewer people to be needlessly killed) is a situation where the average citizen reacts to seeing (or thinking they might have seen) a gun, by calling the cops; And where the cops respond to such reports as though that sighting were a major threat to public safety.

This cannot be achieved while legally carrying a gun is a ubiquitous activity.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
And note that your second objective is the gun-grabber's holy grail--a list of all the guns out there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the DMV are car-grabbers, so now that registration is mandatory, it's only a matter of time before legal automobile owners have their vehicles confiscated by the government.

Because that doesn't sound at all like the paranoid rantings of a crazy person who is terrified of government.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
You'll have to take out an awful lot of legal guns to reduce supply of illegal ones. Why should we not believe that the primary effect is the real objective?
Click to expand...
Because the real objective is to reduce the number of people who get shot.

If the number of legal guns falls dramatically, what problem does this cause for anybody?
 
bilby said:
If the number of legal guns falls dramatically, what problem does this cause for anybody?
Click to expand...

It causes deep and lasting emotional damage to insecure (mostly male) individuals trying to dispel feelings of inadequacy by holding sway of life and death over others.
Inflicting that sort of trauma on already damaged individuals can drive them to commit heinous crimes. Maybe not quite Las Vegas Shooter heinous (for lack of means), but I'm sure our local firearms expert would agree that they could wreak significant havoc with a knife or something, and possibly even cause PROPERTY DAMAGE.
 
I still think the mythos created by Hollywood has a lot to do with it.
OK coral shootouts were not that common.
Most towns had no carry laws by the 1880's.
Every guy thinks they are John Wayne or Klint Eastwood come to clean up the town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom