Ballpark shooting

[gimmethesimplelife]

catherine.......I've noticed that for a long time. And I'm convinced it's because the conservatives on this forum come down hard on the liberals.........and liberals, being less aggressive, don't like that and scatter/give up. I mean seriously.......who can possibly win an argument with a conservative regarding gun laws?

I can. It's a miracle today that my mother is alive - as my father once was drunk and had a gun in his hands and threatened to blow her away. He didn't, thankfully, but flashing back on that image gives me all kinds of emotional strength to keep on fighting in the face of just can't get it. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Ha, Ha....Now that's funny.

I don't agree. I personally am less aggressive than some of the conservatives here......Rob

[LDAHL]

While I doubt there is any meaningful way to resolve the question of who is the most aggressive, at least rhetorically speaking, I will say this on the subject of real violence:

I'm no big fan of firearms. But I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights. I can't think of any control or prohibition that would work any better than what has been tried in the past for other destructive or bad things. If something must be done, it probably must be done in the cultural rather than the political sphere if there is to be any hope of real change. And that may in fact actually be happening. My understanding was that Americans are shooting one another less frequently than in prior generations.

But given the number of weapons in circulation, it's hard to believe that any measures draconian enough to have any real impact wouldn't be more harmful than helpful. In the long run, I doubt it's possible to purchase safety by curtailing liberty.

[Rogar]

I am a former member of the NRA, have shot rifles in competition, and have passed a state hunter safety program. I don't own a pistol. It would be an interesting statistic to determine the odds of actually using a concealed or open carry in a situation of armed violence against citizens or one's self. I am guessing it would be close to the odds of getting struck by lightening. The other statistic would be how many of these people have the training and intelligence to use a defense firearm responsibly. And how many suffer an accidental discharge resulting in bodily harm.

[Teacher Terry]

I am a liberal that is not a fan of gun control. I agree it is cultural. If nuts did not have guns they would use another method like stabbing. Probably harder to inflict as many injuries though.

[Alan]

I am a liberal that is not a fan of gun control. I agree it is cultural. If nuts did not have guns they would use another method like stabbing. Probably harder to inflict as many injuries though.

That's why the new hot and sexy is home-made bombs and plowing into crowds with vehicles.

[LDAHL]

That's why the new hot and sexy is home-made bombs and plowing into crowds with vehicles.

Hate will find a way.

[Ultralight]

In light of these types of events, I think it is important to be careful about the conclusions we draw about people, certain demographics in particular.

When the Portland Train Attack happened many -- especially SJWs -- shouted about how straight white men are the problem and how "white hate" is on the rise.

But what these SJWs failed to notice was that two white men stood up for the girls who were being harassed by a white supremacist and gave their lives in defense of these girls.

Perhaps this should be a sign that straight white men are actively taking part in the multi-ethnic enterprise of abolishing white supremacy from US culture.

So because one deranged nutjob who happened to be a lefty committed a horrible act does not mean that we should draw broad-sweeping conclusions about demographics this crazy (or evil) man was a part of.

[ApatheticNoMore]

since people who engage in these type of things have all kind of ideologies (or most often and overwhelmingly none, aren't mass shootings usually non-political? But even if we limit it to politically motivated acts it spans a spectrum), speculating that it is *caused* by ideology is a dead end and would be so barring some overwhelming trend.

But really I don't think anyone arguing that actually believes it either, it's just used to score political points.

[ToomuchStuff]

It's interesting that there is no mention of the shooting. Is this just the next move of the resistance?

I have a concealed carry permit, but I never carried. I kept a gun in the car, but that is now changing. I did buy a carry gun just in case I wanted to, but now I'm wondering if I should chose one with more capacity. I have a PPS that is 7+1 with an extra 6 round mag. But I'm thinking my hi power or sig with 15+1 might be a better choice now.

I go to the range regularly, but I'll now carry when I'm out.

I misread this at first, and was thinking Hi point, which is less then 10 rounds and I know was just on sale for $99.
That said, after talking with several LEO officers I have known, from different agencies, several of them have multiple carry guns, depending on how they have to dress (compromise of conceal-ability, verses capacity). But more LEO I know are carrying off duty, due to the targets on their backs from all the anti cop movements. We have locally had several officers quit after a friend/LEO was shot in the head recently, and is still recovering.
I am also seeing an upturn in AR pistols, which a California story called an "assault pistol" (wouldn't that be any pistol used in an assault?).
Repeat of a video in other discussions:

Perhaps civil society is breaking down... very slowly, very incrementally.

Either way, my motto for a while has just been: "Brace for impact."

I see things steadily getting worse.

George Carlin, circling the drain?

I think most people here really try to avoid talking about the gun problem we have in this country. Like Congress, there seems to be no middle ground. I think some here are more open to compromise than others.

I watched an interview of a man (forget who exactly) who was on the ball field playing when the shooting occurred. He went on and on about how they (in Congress) have to be more open to each other, and into compromise. The interviewer said something like "How can we deal with situations like this?".......and he responded "Well, I know my colleague so-and-so and I have decided to carry a gun with us here."

It might be a natural reaction to escalate the defense by arming one's self.......but surely there are alternative ways of dealing with things, other than everyone walking around armed and read to shoot at a moment's notice.

We, in this country, keep talking, talking, talking and don't fix anything. We have a horrible gun problem in this country, but nobody wants to give up their guns. Yes, most of you here who own guns are responsible gun owners.......but there must be some compromise where we can deal with this issue without gun owners freaking out when talking about somehow limiting the guns out there. Seems like our "rights" are keeping us unsafe.
It's very disconcerting to me that we can't deal with the violence issue in this country.

Another option would be more police, but police aren't politically correct right now. A LEO I know just went through their annual training/qualification updates and word came from high above, since they entered before Tasers were used (even though they have been given all the updates), they had to take the "introductory" class on them. The old timers were separated from the new recruits, because they are pushing (for political correctness), for the officers to "put down their gun after shooting someone when a group is charging them, and switch to a taser, and hope the others will stop".
And the big problem is always the illegal (stolen) guns, and stupid people (who can legally own guns).
Our state law was changed because of an incident that involved a childhood friend, of diminished capacity (the word at the time was Retarded). He got a job as an armed security guard and I will leave it at that.

That's because we keep diverting the issue to 'gun control' as if that is the answer to the problem. It's not.
Just look at Europe where they have very effective gun control, the violence simply takes another form.

We have a massive gun problem in this country. But I don't think laws are going to fix the problem.

The problem is in us. We need to change ourselves, the way we think, our culture.

Individuals are the only ones that can change themselves. We already live in a multicultural society, so the culture aspect, won't work (not just one, and then you have other infringement issues).

Perhaps too many of us still believe that the best response to an abuse of liberty is not to restrict liberty.

Well..........we're seeing how that works.

But its not an all-or-none situation.

I know some of you think that if one freedom/right is "adjusted", then the next step is tyranny. I think we can work in small steps...........like getting rid of cancers in our penal system. (ooops......"correctional system".)

Many states don't have the death penalty. If you have undeniable DNA evidence that someone has committed a horrendous crime, why not remove that person from this universe? We can't even do that. Some cry "Oh........but that's inhumane!"

So, it's humane when we have to spend so much money to keep them in prisons, feed them, keep them healthy.....while they become part of the worst elements in the prisons and form gangs, etc.? We can't even make small moves to make this society better/safer. All our moves are "fair" bandaids. We have shootings every night in the city near here. A new sheriff and new mayor vowed to keep the violence down.......but nothing changes. Make criminals know that if they want to do a crime......they may lose their lives. I know there are so many complex issues that have brought us to this point. I'm thinking maybe we're at the point of no return. I just don't know. But don't we have to start somewhere? Don't we have to start getting tough somewhere?

Abortion and capital punishment, and from above, you I would guess support the castle doctrine. These are all life/liberty/rights verses dollar values (castle doctrine, allows one to defend oneself and their property, and if the perp dies, can save the taxpayer money in trials and imprisonment)

catherine.......I've noticed that for a long time. And I'm convinced it's because the conservatives on this forum come down hard on the liberals.........and liberals, being less aggressive, don't like that and scatter/give up. I mean seriously.......who can possibly win an argument with a conservative regarding gun laws?

Ha, Ha....Now that's funny.

I don't agree. I personally am less aggressive than some of the conservatives here......Rob

When I joined, this forum was more liberal. But as everything, there is eb and flow as people have life happen to them. Liberals would swing the ban hammer, more then I have seen the conservative forum owner here, do. They also seemed to have no issue, violating the rules and saying they were above that (Redfox and the famous ignorant comment). Has Alan banned anyone other then Packy and spammers?
But think about the context in congress.

While I doubt there is any meaningful way to resolve the question of who is the most aggressive, at least rhetorically speaking, I will say this on the subject of real violence:

I'm no big fan of firearms. But I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights. I can't think of any control or prohibition that would work any better than what has been tried in the past for other destructive or bad things. If something must be done, it probably must be done in the cultural rather than the political sphere if there is to be any hope of real change. And that may in fact actually be happening. My understanding was that Americans are shooting one another less frequently than in prior generations.

But given the number of weapons in circulation, it's hard to believe that any measures draconian enough to have any real impact wouldn't be more harmful than helpful. In the long run, I doubt it's possible to purchase safety by curtailing liberty.

I am a liberal that is not a fan of gun control. I agree it is cultural. If nuts did not have guns they would use another method like stabbing. Probably harder to inflict as many injuries though.

Not really, explosives are so much easier to make/obtain.
Boston Marathon, a local bombing that killed a neighbor years ago, when someone started a demolition trailer on fire, Anarchist Cookbook, Old military surplus training manuals, etc. etc. etc.
A gun is a more directed targeting.