Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Well that sucks.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Parcel. The P stands for Parcel.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
Went into Best Buy a few months ago and there is some fool with a pistol in a holster (that was all kind of fancy imprinted with the stars and stripes) sitting at the Verizon counter with a little kid on his lap. I can't even begin to tell you how ef fed up I think that guy is or how ef fed up the country is to think this guy should want to do it. No reason for it other than the equivilent of to say I have a big dick.
edit- not anti gun- loved shooting when I was a kid. Was required to be able to take down and clean the weapon before I could fire it. Just don't get the mentality
Have to admit I am not surprised it happened so much as surprised it was a left wing nutjob instead of a rightwing one. I guess both sides can take it seriously when the person running for president makes a comment about utilizing 'our 2nd amendment rights, if you know what I mean'
Other than the cowboy 3rd world countries is there another country who reacts to this type of thing by telling people they should be armed? (serious question) Maybe it is because I spent some time out of country but it seems so sad to me we have people advocating for more guns, open carry, the right to all sorts of weaponry that there is no need for to 'protect ourselves'. How is it normal to think we live in such a hostile country that everyone should have guns? I can think of no other civilized country who thinks this way. Not even on their radar screen.
Went into Best Buy a few months ago and there is some fool with a pistol in a holster (that was all kind of fancy imprinted with the stars and stripes) sitting at the Verizon counter with a little kid on his lap. I can't even begin to tell you how ef fed up I think that guy is or how ef fed up the country is to think this guy should want to do it. No reason for it other than the equivilent of to say I have a big dick.
edit- not anti gun- loved shooting when I was a kid. Was required to be able to take down and clean the weapon before I could fire it. Just don't get the mentality
Yeah, it was kind of a novelty then. Now it's commonplace.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
What do you propose we do? From everything I have read the guns were purchased legally by the shooter and the he wasn't prohibited from owning guns even though he was arrested multiple times.
One thing that I think this case will highlight is that quite a few crimes people are arrested for aren't prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There would be significantly more people in jail if there were.
I agree with you on the guy from Best Buy. I've never been a fan of open carry and think it just creates problems for decent gun owners.
Have to admit I am not surprised it happened so much as surprised it was a left wing nutjob instead of a rightwing one. I guess both sides can take it seriously when the person running for president makes a comment about utilizing 'our 2nd amendment rights, if you know what I mean'
Other than the cowboy 3rd world countries is there another country who reacts to this type of thing by telling people they should be armed? (serious question) Maybe it is because I spent some time out of country but it seems so sad to me we have people advocating for more guns, open carry, the right to all sorts of weaponry that there is no need for to 'protect ourselves'. How is it normal to think we live in such a hostile country that everyone should have guns? I can think of no other civilized country who thinks this way. Not even on their radar screen.
Went into Best Buy a few months ago and there is some fool with a pistol in a holster (that was all kind of fancy imprinted with the stars and stripes) sitting at the Verizon counter with a little kid on his lap. I can't even begin to tell you how ef fed up I think that guy is or how ef fed up the country is to think this guy should want to do it. No reason for it other than the equivilent of to say I have a big dick.
edit- not anti gun- loved shooting when I was a kid. Was required to be able to take down and clean the weapon before I could fire it. Just don't get the mentality
What do you propose we do? From everything I have read the guns were purchased legally by the shooter and the he wasn't prohibited from owning guns even though he was arrested multiple times.
One thing that I think this case will highlight is that quite a few crimes people are arrested for aren't prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There would be significantly more people in jail if there were.
I agree with you on the guy from Best Buy. I've never been a fan of open carry and think it just creates problems for decent gun owners.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
The only surprise for me is that it was a guy at retirement age. I always assume
20ish or younger guys with more balls than brains for shooting
The only surprise for me is that it was a guy at retirement age. I always assume
20ish or younger guys with more balls than brains for shooting
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
Meh, part of their good guy with a gun argument is it will be a deterrent if more people are armed. How'd that work out?
Meh, part of their good guy with a gun argument is it will be a deterrent if more people are armed. How'd that work out?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
No. They mention frequently how less people would die if a good guy with a gun is around. Deterrent is not something you hear from the NRA often.
No. They mention frequently how less people would die if a good guy with a gun is around. Deterrent is not something you hear from the NRA often.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
Here's a place to start. Technically, today's shooter wouldn't even make the list as there must be >=6 deaths. Links to separate types of incidences are found within the page - school killings, workplace killings, etc..
Here's a place to start. Technically, today's shooter wouldn't even make the list as there must be >=6 deaths. Links to separate types of incidences are found within the page - school killings, workplace killings, etc..
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
I often wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about this stuff. They were for the most part very pragmatic and realistic.
I think the point is we have a sub culture that is so obsessed with the neeeeeed to have the right to a gun and have manufactured all sorts of crazy scenarios that promote everyone having one- the mindset that we live in a world where you could get shot at any moment. (you might but it is more likely that a number of other things would happen more often) When you actually stop and think about it no other country has such an odd obsession about this. There is all sorts of inflammatory rhetoric about people are going to take our guns etc. Honestly- why do we need them in a normal world. If you want them for sport- yup- I get that but the whole hype to protect oneself and the obsession with people taking away my rights? I don't get it.
I often wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about this stuff. They were for the most part very pragmatic and realistic.
Last edited:
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
For me, this hurts more when it's a left-winger. You look through his Facebook and he sounds nicer than any of us on here. We're all crazed ideologues now with more loyalty to party than country. Who will be the grown ups?
Also the guy is dead-on "Walter" (Goodman) in Big Lebowski. Even with the reckless firearm history. Watch his Occupy Wall Street rant. This is the guy they were portraying, creepy as it is now with the victims being actual.
For me, this hurts more when it's a left-winger. You look through his Facebook and he sounds nicer than any of us on here. We're all crazed ideologues now with more loyalty to party than country. Who will be the grown ups?
Also the guy is dead-on "Walter" (Goodman) in Big Lebowski. Even with the reckless firearm history. Watch his Occupy Wall Street rant. This is the guy they were portraying, creepy as it is now with the victims being actual.
Last edited:
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
This is just an observation on my part and yes I know it is a generalization and only my opinion, but I have never met anyone who openly carries in this fashion that wasn't a complete dooshbag. And always at least mildly bigoted. Again, not saying anyone who openly carries is, I just haven't met the one who isn't a doosh. I too am not anti-gun. I'm also smart enough to know that common sense gun laws that attempt to prevent mentally unstable people or anyone convicted of a violent crime from possessing a gun is not a slippery slope to eliminating the second amendment. In fact absent a finding of some such disqualifying condition, I don't want to see much in the way of restrictions. I just think people who have to prove something by strapping it to their waist for all the world to see are trying to do a lot more than defend themselves. I'm just guessing that a lot of these people are also smokers. Point to that is if you want to protect yourself against the highly unlikely incident when you need a firearm to defend yourself, why take a cavalier approach to your survival in other ways that are a whole lot more likely to have you die prematurely? Sort of like the old time hockey players who didn't wear helmets but they always wore elbow pads and shin pads and shoulder pads and gloves. If they were so tough why did they bother with that protection as helmets were becoming more and more common? Because no one ever said wearing hockey gloves made you a sissy.
Went into Best Buy a few months ago and there is some fool with a pistol in a holster (that was all kind of fancy imprinted with the stars and stripes) sitting at the Verizon counter with a little kid on his lap. I can't even begin to tell you how ef fed up I think that guy is or how ef fed up the country is to think this guy should want to do it. No reason for it other than the equivilent of to say I have a big dick.
This is just an observation on my part and yes I know it is a generalization and only my opinion, but I have never met anyone who openly carries in this fashion that wasn't a complete dooshbag. And always at least mildly bigoted. Again, not saying anyone who openly carries is, I just haven't met the one who isn't a doosh. I too am not anti-gun. I'm also smart enough to know that common sense gun laws that attempt to prevent mentally unstable people or anyone convicted of a violent crime from possessing a gun is not a slippery slope to eliminating the second amendment. In fact absent a finding of some such disqualifying condition, I don't want to see much in the way of restrictions. I just think people who have to prove something by strapping it to their waist for all the world to see are trying to do a lot more than defend themselves. I'm just guessing that a lot of these people are also smokers. Point to that is if you want to protect yourself against the highly unlikely incident when you need a firearm to defend yourself, why take a cavalier approach to your survival in other ways that are a whole lot more likely to have you die prematurely? Sort of like the old time hockey players who didn't wear helmets but they always wore elbow pads and shin pads and shoulder pads and gloves. If they were so tough why did they bother with that protection as helmets were becoming more and more common? Because no one ever said wearing hockey gloves made you a sissy.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
That is one big broad brush. Holy schnikeys.
That is one big broad brush. Holy schnikeys.
D
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Guest
The smokers comment lost me...
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
Ditto. And I am a smoker, to be fair, for the record.
Ditto. And I am a smoker, to be fair, for the record.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
That was the first thing I said when I saw him.
That was the first thing I said when I saw him.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II
The most strident voices clamoring for "gun control" are the very same people who hire armed guards to protect themselves. The fine print in all of their proposals allows private security firms to continue to carry guns.
Here's an idea:
-- if you really want strict gun control, no armed guards for you. Or,
-- for those of us who cannot afford armed guards, we get to own guns to protect our homes and our families.
The real underlying issue here is not "gun control," it is mental health.
I think almost all of us could agree on a few things:
-- mentally ill and mentally unstable people should not be allowed to use guns
-- violent criminals should not be allowed to use guns
-- terrorists should not be allowed to use guns.
The underlying factor in all cases is not "gun control" it is responsible citizens vs threats to society.
The most strident voices clamoring for "gun control" are the very same people who hire armed guards to protect themselves. The fine print in all of their proposals allows private security firms to continue to carry guns.
Here's an idea:
-- if you really want strict gun control, no armed guards for you. Or,
-- for those of us who cannot afford armed guards, we get to own guns to protect our homes and our families.
The real underlying issue here is not "gun control," it is mental health.
I think almost all of us could agree on a few things:
-- mentally ill and mentally unstable people should not be allowed to use guns
-- violent criminals should not be allowed to use guns
-- terrorists should not be allowed to use guns.
The underlying factor in all cases is not "gun control" it is responsible citizens vs threats to society.
- Status