There's a report of shots fired and a lockdown at Highline Community College south of here. Hope it's nothing.
Update: it's apparently nothing.
There's a report of shots fired and a lockdown at Highline Community College south of here. Hope it's nothing.
Update: it's apparently nothing.
Last edited by JaneV2.0; 2-16-18 at 1:55pm.
How many black and hispanic kids have died from shootings in Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago, et. al. since the beginning of the year?
Where is the prepackaged outrage and spiffy news stories about these young peoples’ deaths?
I know, they aren’t photogenic white kids, but still...
bae,
I believe local media in the cities you mention do the job of telling the story of gun violence, although they may not always mention the race of the victim.
For example the Chicago Tribune maintains "Young Victims", without detailing the race of victims.
Thus far in 2018 in Chicago there were 22 shooting victims 16 years old or younger. One of these shootings resulted in homicide.
In the full year 2017 there were 246 young shooting victims in the same age group. 38 homicides resulted.
Perhaps you are being sarcastic when you ask where is the "prepackaged" outrage and "spiffy" news stories. However, if you seek news stories on the pain and loss of life, or op-ed pieces filled with outrage, I sincerely believe you will find many of those in local media. In "Young Victims" you can hover your mouse over each dot to see the news story.
http://apps.chicagotribune.com/news/...young_victims/
Part of it is surely the "shooting fish in a barrel" aspect of it.
I agree that carnage of any kind is unforgivable--especially when committed by those sworn to "protect and serve."
Here’s why I believe, this time it is different. The FBI screwed up. Is it because they were preoccupied assigning assets to the “russian meddling” nonsense? Or are they just that incompetent? In any event, it’s obvious law enforcement has lost much credibility over this new senseless tragedy which we find out could have been prevented. The FBI Director might be looking for a new job soon.
Also, there is a genuine sense of being just plain worn down by the defenders of the literal second amendment without restrictions based on the ability to resist tyranny through armed insurrection. That’s the only argument that insists on ownership of firearms without restriction, otherwise the SC has ruled reasonable restrictions apply.
I believe that a country that once banned semiauto AR15 type firearms can embrace it again in the face of the carnage. It doesn’t matter whether we can reasonably expect it to reduce the frequency or number of deaths in mass shootings or not. It might simply be the cost of buying our forgiveness for a symbolic public transgression. The time is right again. It feels like it to me.
Did you know that the NRA is fractured? There is a rush of members leaving for the GOA. Those that remain are sympathetic to further restrictions, bumpstock bans and broad expansion of prohibiting factors to ownership known as the fix NICS bill. A bill which will authorize domestic sweeping of all social media and internet presence and digestion of factors to add names to the denied purchase list.
In fact, the history of the NRA contrary to popular reporting is that the NRA was responsible for many of the restrictive gun control laws that have been enacted. The leadership of the NRA, board of directors is struggling to keep the moderates in place and fighting against the election of hardliners.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the parents of the newly murdered children doesn’t become a force to be reckoned with. That force is growing with each new mass shooting incident.
I would like to hear what the FBI has to say about what they did with the information. Don't you think that it's a thin line.........how far to go containing someone who hasn't acted out any of the potentially bad things they've said online or to "friends"?
I'm thinking that individuals have so many rights that no one (including the FBI) can proceed against them without a law suit, etc. I know some of you will say losing some freedoms isn't worth it, and we just have to let people alone......until they do something "illegal"/deadly.
I know I'm not saying this very well. I just think many of us would be willing to give up a little freedom, in order to stop some of these things from happening. I honestly think it's insane to continue without doing something about it.
What, specifically, do you incarcerate people for when they have harmed no one?Originally Posted by CathyA
Sure WS, the tide may have turned about certain legalities becoming illegal, but in my ‘hood it really does not matter what the law says about who may own which firearms. So these guys who already operate illegally will just jam up the courts more when/if they are caught. They are back out on the streets pretty soon.
Are ya’ll willing to lock up more young black men for longer periods since that is the demographic flaunting existing gun laws?
Skinny, nerdy, white shooters in suburbia are pretty uncommon.
Last edited by iris lilies; 2-16-18 at 8:25pm.
That's what I'm saying........that if we want to catch some of these mass shooters ahead of time, we have to allow the law to bring them in and investigate them, their comments, their guns, etc.....and find them a threat to society.
Actually the Texas church shooter was not supposed to own guns because of domestic abuse charges. The system did not communicate that very well and he had quite an arsenal. From some of what I heard people on the inside of these systems say that being short staffed and underfunded is a big factor in getting the arrest records to the proper people so that restrictions can be enforced.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote