All-Purpose Shooting Thread

Okay, so there are two shootings of note:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

^ 15 year old kid uses an automatic assault weapon to murder his mom, dad, and younger siblings

and

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

^ nobody killed here, 3 wounded (?) and 2 detained (?)

Quote :

A sheriff's detective questioned the teen Saturday night, and the details of their conversation were in the statement. The teen allegedly told the detective that he took a .22-caliber rifle from his parents' closet around midnight Saturday and shot his mother in the head while his younger brother slept next to her.
He told the detective that his brother did not believe him that their mother was dead so he showed his mother's bloody face to his brother and then shot him, according to the statement.
He is accused of then shooting his two young sisters in their room. He retrieved an AR-15 rifle from his parents' closet and waited in a bathroom for his father to come home. The statement said he shot his father multiple times after he passed the bathroom doorway.
The teen said he reloaded the guns so "he could drive to a populated area to murder more people," according to the statement. His plan, the statement said, was to "shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement."

Disco Stu wrote:

^ 15 year old kid uses an automatic assault weapon to murder his mom, dad, and younger siblings

A .22 and an AR-15, neither of which are automatic assault weapons, and that phrase does not even appear in the article.

Oh, can we have an all-purpose gun-control wank thread too?

I'm pretty sure you're looking at it. Give it time.

Either there has been a genuine increase in shootings, or the 28 murders has resulted in them getting a lot more publicity.

I'm honestly not sure which one is preferable.

Well, Gun control doesn't stop shootings but even the FBI admits that gun controlleads to more murders, so obviously it's time to look at a different solution (and stop using made up words like "assault weapon", which were invented by totalitarian sociopaths)

V3N0M wrote:

Well, Gun control doesn't stop shootings but even the FBI admits that gun controlleads to more murders, so obviously it's time to look at a different solution (and stop using made up words like "assault weapon", which were invented by totalitarian sociopaths)

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.

Lady Anne wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

Well, Gun control doesn't stop shootings but even the FBI admits that gun controlleads to more murders, so obviously it's time to look at a different solution (and stop using made up words like "assault weapon", which were invented by totalitarian sociopaths)

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a troll? that must be convenient.

V3N0M wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

Well, Gun control doesn't stop shootings but even the FBI admits that gun controlleads to more murders, so obviously it's time to look at a different solution (and stop using made up words like "assault weapon", which were invented by totalitarian sociopaths)

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a troll? that must be convenient.

Way to necropost.

It was still on page 1, stop changing the subject.

Lady Anne wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

Well, Gun control doesn't stop shootings but even the FBI admits that gun controlleads to more murders, so obviously it's time to look at a different solution (and stop using made up words like "assault weapon", which were invented by totalitarian sociopaths)

I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a troll? that must be convenient.

Way to necropost.

Two weeks isn't a necro-post you incompetent twit.

She couldn't find a way to support a policy that has done nothing but cause more crime and deaths and given govemrents all over the world a monopoly on force, so she tried to shut down the argument. Thanks for making this easy Lady Anne.

Quote :

given govemrents all over the world a monopoly on force

I'm sure you and your friends with your AK-47's or whatever would be able to take on the United States military.

V3N0M wrote:

She couldn't find a way to support a policy that has done nothing but cause more crime and deaths and given govemrents all over the world a monopoly on force, so she tried to shut down the argument. Thanks for making this easy Lady Anne.

Are you auditioning to be a Fox News pundit?

Lady Anne wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

She couldn't find a way to support a policy that has done nothing but cause more crime and deaths and given govemrents all over the world a monopoly on force, so she tried to shut down the argument. Thanks for making this easy Lady Anne.

Are you auditioning to be a Fox News pundit?

I don't even WATCH fox news and that's not an argument. What do you even gain from defending this shit?

Quote :

What do you even gain from defending this shit?

About the same thing that you do, I guess.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

given govemrents all over the world a monopoly on force

I'm sure you and your friends with your AK-47's or whatever would be able to take on the United States military.

Oh for Christ's sake...

Penguin wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

given govemrents all over the world a monopoly on force

I'm sure you and your friends with your AK-47's or whatever would be able to take on the United States military.

Oh for Christ's sake...

What? I'm just saying, at least in 1st world countries, governments are practically just short of a monopoly on force anyway. Whether or not you can buy whatever gun legally, whatever personal arsenal you would be able to amass in your lifetime would pale in comparison to the technology and show of force you would see in a 1st world government. In 3rd world countries the issue is different, but we weren't talking about gun control in Somalia. Whether or not we get to legally buy firearms is kind of a 1st world problem.

Not to mention that even if guns were totally outlawed or whatever you'd still be able to buy guns.

So concern for a "monopoly on force" is a non-issue, really.

And as for the idea that gun control causes more crime, V3nom is probably drawing selectively from his choice of studies, as that debate has not been settled and probably will never be settled because there's too many outside factors to "what causes crime" to fully account for.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

What? I'm just saying, at least in 1st world countries, governments are practically just short of a monopoly on force anyway. Whether or not you can buy whatever gun legally, whatever personal arsenal you would be able to amass in your lifetime would pale in comparison to the technology and show of force you would see in a 1st world government. In 3rd world countries the issue is different, but we weren't talking about gun control in Somalia. Whether or not we get to legally buy firearms is kind of a 1st world problem.

Not to mention that even if guns were totally outlawed or whatever you'd still be able to buy guns.

So concern for a "monopoly on force" is a non-issue, really.

There's more to it than full-scale rebellion and/or resistance. A big part of the reason you don't want to have a government monopoly on force is that without it, forcing certain things on the people becomes less desirable. Messy and cost-prohibitive. A monopoly centralizes even more power with the elites.

I've gotta run (stuff to take care of before I go back to work again), but this guy has a much more thorough look at the role of private gun ownership in society than I could really provide here:

The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights. It's kind of a slog for a blog post at 12,500 words or so but it covers a wide variety of issues with it.

Quote :

There's more to it than full-scale rebellion and/or resistance. A big part of the reason you don't want to have a government monopoly on force is that without it, forcing certain things on the people becomes less desirable. Messy and cost-prohibitive. A monopoly centralizes even more power with the elites.

Fair, and if that's what V3nom really meant, I'm sorry V3nom for my knee-jerk and unfair characterization.

However, I'm still fairly ambivalent about gun-control. I read the blog post and remain unconvinced that owning a gun is a right or terribly important. Just like I'm not convinced that owning a gun leads to more crime. Arming yourself seems a fairly limited way of attempting to exert control over your world.

I do, however, applaud his take on pseudo-pacifism as well as his thoroughness and I thank you for showing me this. Jolly good show.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Fair, and if that's what V3nom really meant, I'm sorry V3nom for my knee-jerk and unfair characterization.

I think it is a safe assumption that the stupidest interpretation of what nom says is probably the correct one.

Isn't it funny how we have a shooting thread and a thread about profiling whitey in shootings but nothing about Christopher Dorner, who was black and called for more gun control knowing it wouldn't affect his illegal activities?

V3N0M wrote:

Isn't it funny how we have a shooting thread and a thread about profiling whitey in shootings but nothing about Christopher Dorner, who was black and called for more gun control knowing it wouldn't affect his illegal activities?

...of all the problems with the coverage on Dorner, this is what you pick up on?

HAI GUYS HAVE YOU HURD OF JOHN MOOMOOMAD AND BOB LEE MALVO

Penguin wrote:

V3N0M wrote:

Isn't it funny how we have a shooting thread and a thread about profiling whitey in shootings but nothing about Christopher Dorner, who was black and called for more gun control knowing it wouldn't affect his illegal activities?

...of all the problems with the coverage on Dorner, this is what you pick up on?

HAI GUYS HAVE YOU HURD OF JOHN MOOMOOMAD AND BOB LEE MALVO

It's v3nom; Penguin, would you expect anything else outside of stating the stupidly obvious and/or missing the point?