NIKV69 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Here is more about what happened. Highlights a lot about why the parents got charged and why there was a meeting at school.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/oxford ... 60da93990b



I couldn't imagine leaving without the kid at that point.

I'm a little baffled that the school let him back into class as well.

Seriously he should have been suspended immediately. Good Lord.

I'm sure the coming multiple lawsuits against the school will all point this out.

It is really pathetic that schools need to have the policies they have nowadays but they are needed. Unfortunately.

Tugg

B717fan wrote:

The attorneys for the parents are claiming that they didn't flee and that they're returning to turn themselves in soon.

Think it's time to call Mark Geragos

I realize this thread has become nothing but guns and now militia's and, of all things, Afghanistan... Wanted to bring this to the top seeing that it s readily apparent the victims mean nothing here. This article is about Justin Shilling, he was 17 years old and was killed by the shooter. His family has donated his organs so that someone else's life can be prolonged.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 855440002/

Well, they finally find the parents who are, well, clearly trying to flee but didn't went far...

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 865574002/

B717fan wrote:

The attorneys for the parents are claiming that they didn't flee and that they're returning to turn themselves in soon.

Guess they certainly didn't turn themselves in...

zakuivcustom wrote:

Well, they finally find the parents who are, well, clearly trying to flee but didn't went far...

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 865574002/

B717fan wrote:

The attorneys for the parents are claiming that they didn't flee and that they're returning to turn themselves in soon.

Guess they certainly didn't turn themselves in...

Yeah, they weren't very smart...but we already knew that.

NIKV69 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Here is more about what happened. Highlights a lot about why the parents got charged and why there was a meeting at school.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/oxford ... 60da93990b



I couldn't imagine leaving without the kid at that point.

I'm a little baffled that the school let him back into class as well.

Seriously he should have been suspended immediately. Good Lord.

Could it be that he prepared these scribblings for reasons of precaution in order to now plead for mental problems and in order to get a lower verdict?

N14AZ wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I'm a little baffled that the school let him back into class as well.

Seriously he should have been suspended immediately. Good Lord.

Could it be that he prepared these scribblings for reasons of precaution in order to now plead for mental problems and in order to get a lower verdict?

Who knows? It's strange how he surrendered and then immediately lawyered up. I think he thought this through, but not far enough. It wouldn't surprise me if he thought that he'd only be charged as a juvenile, since he's 15. Nope. Do adult crimes; get adult sentence. His parents aren't going to be around to help or advocate for him, either. They've got their own problems.

CaptHadley wrote:

I realize this thread has become nothing but guns and now militia's and, of all things, Afghanistan... Wanted to bring this to the top seeing that it s readily apparent the victims mean nothing here. This article is about Justin Shilling, he was 17 years old and was killed by the shooter. His family has donated his organs so that someone else's life can be prolonged.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 855440002/

Thank you for bringing this up. It shows the real humanity of some in the face of grave tragedy. He survived for about a day after being shot, but was so injured he could not be saved. Fortunately the parents were able to make and made the decision and now some will live from an organ transplant or live better like with eye corneas from his loss. As news articles on the donation have noted, there were 100's outside the hospital where he was being treated and died at, in support of the parents and for the donation of his organs.
Meanwhile the parents were caught early Saturday AM in Detroit by a sharped eyed person noting their car widely reported license plate number and a woman outside it parked in a lot for an industrial building and found using in part K-9's in it. The day before they had withdrawn $4000 from ATM's so it appears they were trying to evade or delay capture or turning themselves in perhaps heading for nearby Canada or further out of fear of violence for their alleged responsibility for the murders. They were arrested, brought to Oakland County jail and awaiting a court hearing. Hopefully no bail or so high they are there until trial.

ltbewr wrote:

The day before they had withdrawn $4000 from ATM's so it appears they were trying to evade or delay capture or turning themselves in perhaps heading for nearby Canada or further out of fear of violence for their alleged responsibility for the murders.

They were running. They would never have made it into Canada. I'm very familiar with that area of the river. There's a constant stream of USCG, DPD, RCMP, WCSD and CBP boats patrolling the river, along with USCG and CDOT aircraft. There is a DPD and 2 USCG bases within 2 miles of where they were caught. They were idiots.

Stupidity doesn't bother me much - plenty of idiots in the world after all - but callousness does. It really feels like the entire tragedy could have been prevented had these parents simply given a damn. Their conduct is really appalling.

art wrote:

B717fan wrote:

johns624 wrote:

It appears that the parents may be on the run. They aren't responding to phone calls or texts from their lawyer. I guess sonny is on his own now.

Both the US Marshals and the FBI are searching for them.

Jennifer Crumbley to son: "You have to learn not to get caught.” I hope she has not learnt not to get caught. Perhaps she believes she has learnt not to get caught.

How much worse does it make things for the parents legally when (sorry, if ever) they get caught?

Well, it sure doesn't help them........the more that comes out about the days leading up to the shooting, the more disturbing it gets. It was so preventable, red flags everywhere and yet it was allowed to happen. Plenty of blame to go around - the kid himself, the parents and the school for not kicking him out when his writings and drawings came to light. The kid and the parents should get a very extended stay at the gray bar hotel and the school had better be prepared for huge lawsuits. Not usually a fan of litigation but it's well deserved this time around.

Newark727 wrote:

Stupidity doesn't bother me much - plenty of idiots in the world after all - but callousness does. It really feels like the entire tragedy could have been prevented had these parents simply given a damn. Their conduct is really appalling.

The parents didn't ignore anything. They contributed to his problems, especially the mother.

johns624 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Stupidity doesn't bother me much - plenty of idiots in the world after all - but callousness does. It really feels like the entire tragedy could have been prevented had these parents simply given a damn. Their conduct is really appalling.

The parents didn't ignore anything. They contributed to his problems, especially the mother.

Again, this just backs my notion that breeding should require licensure. Many of society's ills would be prevented this way.

Now the defense is claiming these bozos kept the gun locked and are not guilty:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michigan-s ... 1638552325

Aaron747 wrote:

Now the defense is claiming these bozos kept the gun locked and are not guilty:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michigan-s ... 1638552325

That's a defense attorney's job, just like Alec Baldwin's attempts to sidetrack blame. It'll all come out in the trial where people testify under oath. Until then, anyone can spout any BS that they want to. The most damning details are the wife's texts to her son and her social media posts.

The tone deaf award of the week goes to republican rep thomas massie. Nice family photo, just a couple days after another mass school shooting. Seriously is there something wrong with their brain functions?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

CaptHadley wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

That link just loads as a pile of xml code

T18 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

That link just loads as a pile of xml code

Weird, I clicked on it a couple times and it loaded fine.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

Worked fine for me.

NIKV69 wrote:

How about you give us your solution and what guns we can have?

Well, it seems most folks would consider reasonable measures to include something like:

A licence.
A test of competency.
Insurance.

But as soon as anyone starts to discuss it, all of a sudden they're "trying to take away all of our guns".

ItnStln wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We can not restrict gun ownership in the United States.

"Shall not be infringed" means just that, shall not be infringed. I fail to see why some people can't comprehend this.

The Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional rights are not without limit.

Cost is an infringement - it may be a minor one, but even in America, guns aren't free.
There are limits on what arms you can own.
There are age limits on who can own guns.
Some members of society are not allowed to own guns.

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Now the defense is claiming these bozos kept the gun locked and are not guilty:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michigan-s ... 1638552325

That's a defense attorney's job, just like Alec Baldwin's attempts to sidetrack blame. It'll all come out in the trial where people testify under oath. Until then, anyone can spout any BS that they want to. The most damning details are the wife's texts to her son and her social media posts.

Apparently, the father is a deadbeat father to two other children though he made over 100k a year. The kids are over 18, from 2 different mothers. His current wife has been described by his grown children as a monster, who made their life miserable when they visited their father.

It is obvious their son has some serious mental issues, and when it was pointed out to them, they didn't want to hear it. It's sad that people like this even exist in society.

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

How about you give us your solution and what guns we can have?

Well, it seems most folks would consider reasonable measures to include something like:

A licence.
A test of competency.
Insurance.

But as soon as anyone starts to discuss it, all of a sudden they're "trying to take away all of our guns".

The problem is that most of those ideas put an undue burden on the poor, which would likely be unconstitutional and would disproportionately impact POC.

TriJets wrote:

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

How about you give us your solution and what guns we can have?

Well, it seems most folks would consider reasonable measures to include something like:

A licence.
A test of competency.
Insurance.

But as soon as anyone starts to discuss it, all of a sudden they're "trying to take away all of our guns".

The problem is that most of those ideas put an undue burden on the poor, which would likely be unconstitutional and would disproportionately impact POC.

Hmm, kinda almost like, voting rights, abortion rights, etc. huh.

If you have more people with guns, then unless you have a smaller portion who are mad/bad you will have more shootings.

I hear all this good guy with a gun stuff, but what are the chance of him/her stepping forward at that precise moment.

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Now the defense is claiming these bozos kept the gun locked and are not guilty:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michigan-s ... 1638552325

That's a defense attorney's job, just like Alec Baldwin's attempts to sidetrack blame. It'll all come out in the trial where people testify under oath. Until then, anyone can spout any BS that they want to. The most damning details are the wife's texts to her son and her social media posts.

Plenty of grey areas in the Baldwin case, namely being handed a gun and being told it’s cold by the weapons handler. But thanks for letting us know your bias

bennett123 wrote:

If you have more people with guns, then unless you have a smaller portion who are mad/bad you will have more shootings.

I hear all this good guy with a gun stuff, but what are the chance of him/her stepping forward at that precise moment.

The chances are actually pretty high. Instances of defensive gun usage in the United States dramatically outnumber homicides, for example.

M564038 wrote:

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

Just more victims....

TriJets wrote:

The chances are actually pretty high. Instances of defensive gun usage in the United States dramatically outnumber homicides, for example.

Using rounded (in gun owners favour) figures from this article: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/5/guns-used-more-for-self-defense-than-crimes

82 million adults gun owners in the US
2 million instances of defensive gun usage in a year

So that averages as 1 in 40 gun owners in the US feeling the need to use their gun defensively each year (which seems like a crazy high number to me).

This article https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/united-states-adult-population-grew-faster-than-nations-total-population-from-2010-to-2020.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Census,from%20234.6%20million%20in%202010. states there are around 260 millions adults in the US, so approximately 31-32% of US adults are gun owners (according to these published figures).

This brings up a whole load of questions, but mostly...

Q Is the violent crime rate against those 68-69% of non gun owning adult Americans statistically higher?

No, not at all, as you can easily see from statistics of gun-carrying vs. gun violence in different countries.

The american problem is that of the chicken and the egg. Did the carry-culture or the high amount of gun crime come first.

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

Just more victims....

cedarjet wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Now the defense is claiming these bozos kept the gun locked and are not guilty:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michigan-s ... 1638552325

That's a defense attorney's job, just like Alec Baldwin's attempts to sidetrack blame. It'll all come out in the trial where people testify under oath. Until then, anyone can spout any BS that they want to. The most damning details are the wife's texts to her son and her social media posts.

Plenty of grey areas in the Baldwin case, namely being handed a gun and being told it’s cold by the weapons handler. But thanks for letting us know your bias

I find it humorous that it's the antigun people who are constantly defending Baldwin. You never take anyone else's word that a gun is unloaded. Even George Clooney has said that it's standard protocol to check the gun yourself. A single action revolver like the one he had requires you to manually cock the hammer and then pull the trigger. It doesn't go "bang" any other way. His latest interview (PR stunt) was a joke.

bennett123 wrote:

I hear all this good guy with a gun stuff, but what are the chance of him/her stepping forward at that precise moment.

Well, since schools are "gun free zones", none in this case.

Virtual737 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The chances are actually pretty high. Instances of defensive gun usage in the United States dramatically outnumber homicides, for example.

Using rounded (in gun owners favour) figures from this article: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/5/guns-used-more-for-self-defense-than-crimes

82 million adults gun owners in the US
2 million instances of defensive gun usage in a year

So that averages as 1 in 40 gun owners in the US feeling the need to use their gun defensively each year (which seems like a crazy high number to me).

This article https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/united-states-adult-population-grew-faster-than-nations-total-population-from-2010-to-2020.html#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Census,from%20234.6%20million%20in%202010. states there are around 260 millions adults in the US, so approximately 31-32% of US adults are gun owners (according to these published figures).

This brings up a whole load of questions, but mostly...

Q Is the violent crime rate against those 68-69% of non gun owning adult Americans statistically higher?

Important to note that defensive gun use doesn't mean actually firing a weapon....even brandishing it in self-defense qualifies. Also important to note that crime varies greatly by neighborhood....some people who live in high-crime neighborhoods may have to use their guns defensively several times a year while people who live in low-crime neighborhoods may never use them. 1 in 40 doesn't seem that crazy in my opinion. Just about everyone I know owns at least one gun and I know of several households (including my own) where the guns were used defensively in the last several years. The usual situation involves confronting either a trespasser or someone trying to gain access to your home.

M564038 wrote:

No, not at all, as you can easily see from statistics of gun-carrying vs. gun violence in different countries.

The american problem is that of the chicken and the egg. Did the carry-culture or the high amount of gun crime come first.

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

If fewer good guys carry guns, you get less gun violence.

Just more victims....

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if the chicken or the egg came first, as the chickens and eggs are both already here to stay. We have more guns than people in the United States. An overwhelming percentage of our gun crime is committed by criminals who are already prohibited from owning guns. Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

No.
The american society’s unhealthy relationship with guns is not a law of nature.

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No, not at all, as you can easily see from statistics of gun-carrying vs. gun violence in different countries.

The american problem is that of the chicken and the egg. Did the carry-culture or the high amount of gun crime come first.

TriJets wrote:

Just more victims....

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if the chicken or the egg came first, as the chickens and eggs are both already here to stay. We have more guns than people in the United States. An overwhelming percentage of our gun crime is committed by criminals who are already prohibited from owning guns. Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No, not at all, as you can easily see from statistics of gun-carrying vs. gun violence in different countries.

The american problem is that of the chicken and the egg. Did the carry-culture or the high amount of gun crime come first.

TriJets wrote:

Just more victims....

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if the chicken or the egg came first, as the chickens and eggs are both already here to stay. We have more guns than people in the United States. An overwhelming percentage of our gun crime is committed by criminals who are already prohibited from owning guns. Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

How did the bad guys get so "heavily-armed"?

ltbewr wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

I realize this thread has become nothing but guns and now militia's and, of all things, Afghanistan... Wanted to bring this to the top seeing that it s readily apparent the victims mean nothing here. This article is about Justin Shilling, he was 17 years old and was killed by the shooter. His family has donated his organs so that someone else's life can be prolonged.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 855440002/

Thank you for bringing this up. It shows the real humanity of some in the face of grave tragedy. He survived for about a day after being shot, but was so injured he could not be saved. Fortunately the parents were able to make and made the decision and now some will live from an organ transplant or live better like with eye corneas from his loss. As news articles on the donation have noted, there were 100's outside the hospital where he was being treated and died at, in support of the parents and for the donation of his organs.
Meanwhile the parents were caught early Saturday AM in Detroit by a sharped eyed person noting their car widely reported license plate number and a woman outside it parked in a lot for an industrial building and found using in part K-9's in it. The day before they had withdrawn $4000 from ATM's so it appears they were trying to evade or delay capture or turning themselves in perhaps heading for nearby Canada or further out of fear of violence for their alleged responsibility for the murders. They were arrested, brought to Oakland County jail and awaiting a court hearing. Hopefully no bail or so high they are there until trial.

The parents are being held for $500,000 each

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/04/10614651 ... red-oxford

Two questions:

Who will post their bond?
How are they all three going to blame everyone else and try to get out of being charged?

seb146 wrote:

Two questions:

Who will post their bond?
How are they all three going to blame everyone else and try to get out of being charged?

Nobody will post their bond. They've proven that they are a flight risk.
They've already been charged.
The son is toast. He's getting life without parole.
The parents will be convicted of "something", even if it isn't manslaughter. Even if they aren't, their lives are ruined. Their lawyers will take all their money and nobody will ever hire them for a meaningful job, because of the stigma.
Good riddance to the whole family.

TriJets wrote:

Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

Where did you read about "disarming" good guys? I bet you got that from your latest "Guns and Penises" monthly NRA pamphlet. No one, and I mean no one, in this country is attempting to organize a national disarmament of law-abiding citizens. A lot of rational people that actually give a shit about improving this tragic condition are simply arguing for more rational regulation over the manufacturing, distribution and ownership of guns and rifles. Are you able to distinguish the two?

I guess when your doctor discovers a malignant tumor in your lung you'll waive chemo saying "it's too late man, it's already in there". Maybe you'll shoot yourself in the lung and claim self-defense. More guns, the answer to all of life's problems.

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

No, not at all, as you can easily see from statistics of gun-carrying vs. gun violence in different countries.

The american problem is that of the chicken and the egg. Did the carry-culture or the high amount of gun crime come first.

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if the chicken or the egg came first, as the chickens and eggs are both already here to stay. We have more guns than people in the United States. An overwhelming percentage of our gun crime is committed by criminals who are already prohibited from owning guns. Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

How did the bad guys get so "heavily-armed"?

By purchasing weapons, often unlawfully, or stealing them.

wingman wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

Where did you read about "disarming" good guys? I bet you got that from your latest "Guns and Penises" monthly NRA pamphlet. No one, and I mean no one, in this country is attempting to organize a national disarmament of law-abiding citizens. A lot of rational people that actually give a shit about improving this tragic condition are simply arguing for more rational regulation over the manufacturing, distribution and ownership of guns and rifles. Are you able to distinguish the two?

I guess when your doctor discovers a malignant tumor in your lung you'll waive chemo saying "it's too late man, it's already in there". Maybe you'll shoot yourself in the lung and claim self-defense. More guns, the answer to all of life's problems.

I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't understand the infatuation with genitalia. And there have been plenty of politicians who have pushed for laws that would outright ban most weapons in production. Even the anti-gun lobby has stated that they want to get rid of all guns and a ban on "ARs" would be the first step. Other politicians are pushing things like handgun bans (look at the Supreme Court case involving NYC, for starters). Let's not forget one of the leading candidates the Democrats nominated for President stating loud and clear, "Hell yeah I'm going to take your AR-15". Sorry, not going to happen.

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if the chicken or the egg came first, as the chickens and eggs are both already here to stay. We have more guns than people in the United States. An overwhelming percentage of our gun crime is committed by criminals who are already prohibited from owning guns. Disarming the good guys will only leave them defenseless against the heavily-armed bad guys.

How did the bad guys get so "heavily-armed"?

By purchasing weapons, often unlawfully, or stealing them.

Well it can't be lawfully now can it. So that leaves pretty much stealing them. So how do they steal them, pretty much by breaking into homes and on occasion a gun shop. So if they're breaking into homes and are able to steal them, what does that say about homeowners and guns not being locked up.

TriJets wrote:

I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't understand the infatuation with genitalia. And there have been plenty of politicians who have pushed for laws that would outright ban most weapons in production. Even the anti-gun lobby has stated that they want to get rid of all guns and a ban on "ARs" would be the first step. Other politicians are pushing things like handgun bans (look at the Supreme Court case involving NYC, for starters). Let's not forget one of the leading candidates the Democrats nominated for President stating loud and clear, "Hell yeah I'm going to take your AR-15". Sorry, not going to happen.

You sure as hell sound like one. Here you are parroting a fear mongering tactic that's become the core of the NRA's strategy to ensure that guns get manufactured and distributed at ever increasing rates year after year after year. And here we are with the highest level of gun "ownership" we've ever achieved in our history. Some achievement huh? I makes you wonder what all those people (not you of course, you're not one of them) were so afraid of.

This is just more bullshit to convince small-minded, small everything, morons that the solution to everything is more guns. But the mass killings and gun deaths just go on and on and on. Sandy Hook said it all, and so did Vegas. I guarantee you that someone could strafe a premie ward at the local hospital killing 60 defenseless 4 week olds and within a week, a single week, the pro gun crowd would be questioning how the hell those premies weren't allowed to defend themselves. They'd all start yelling (not you of course) that the commies are coming to take our guns so let's all buy another 4 million of them and another 60 million rounds. We can't fix stupidity but we should certainly try to legislate as much safety as we can to protect ourselves against it.

We should treat guns just like we treat cars. Freedom of movement is another constitutional guarantee, and yet I have to buckle up, renew my license, insurance and registration over and over again. Let's look to other nations that cherish responsible gun ownership and start adopting all the other responsible laws they have on the books that helps prevent needless death on such a scale. Switzerland, Spain, the Nordics...they all have bad parenting, video games and depression too. But at least parents in those countries don't have nightmares on a routine basis of getting the call that their kid was mowed down during math class. I don't understand how any of us can live with such a pathetic and disgusting national trait as this.

wingman wrote:

Where did you read about "disarming" good guys? I bet you got that from your latest "Guns and Penises" monthly NRA pamphlet. No one, and I mean no one, in this country is attempting to organize a national disarmament of law-abiding citizens.

This bill comes pretty darn close. The timelines stated are unreachable and the tax per firearm, per annum is onerous. It'll affect poor people in crime ridden neighborhoods the most. The criminal penalties are also excessive.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... l/127/text

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

How did the bad guys get so "heavily-armed"?

By purchasing weapons, often unlawfully, or stealing them.

Well it can't be lawfully now can it. So that leaves pretty much stealing them. So how do they steal them, pretty much by breaking into homes and on occasion a gun shop. So if they're breaking into homes and are able to steal them, what does that say about homeowners and guns not being locked up.

Sure, some guns are stolen, but a lot are purchased by straw buyers. I.e., John Q can't buy a gun but Jane is in the same gang as John Q and buys one for him. Also, I don't think blaming the victim of home invasions is really the right way to go here.

wingman wrote:

TriJets wrote:

I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't understand the infatuation with genitalia. And there have been plenty of politicians who have pushed for laws that would outright ban most weapons in production. Even the anti-gun lobby has stated that they want to get rid of all guns and a ban on "ARs" would be the first step. Other politicians are pushing things like handgun bans (look at the Supreme Court case involving NYC, for starters). Let's not forget one of the leading candidates the Democrats nominated for President stating loud and clear, "Hell yeah I'm going to take your AR-15". Sorry, not going to happen.

You sure as hell sound like one. Here you are parroting a fear mongering tactic that's become the core of the NRA's strategy to ensure that guns get manufactured and distributed at ever increasing rates year after year after year. And here we are with the highest level of gun "ownership" we've ever achieved in our history. Some achievement huh? I makes you wonder what all those people (not you of course, you're not one of them) were so afraid of.

This is just more bullshit to convince small-minded, small everything, morons that the solution to everything is more guns. But the mass killings and gun deaths just go on and on and on. Sandy Hook said it all, and so did Vegas. I guarantee you that someone could strafe a premie ward at the local hospital killing 60 defenseless 4 week olds and within a week, a single week, the pro gun crowd would be questioning how the hell those premies weren't allowed to defend themselves. They'd all start yelling (not you of course) that the commies are coming to take our guns so let's all buy another 4 million of them and another 60 million rounds. We can't fix stupidity but we should certainly try to legislate as much safety as we can to protect ourselves against it.

We should treat guns just like we treat cars. Freedom of movement is another constitutional guarantee, and yet I have to buckle up, renew my license, insurance and registration over and over again. Let's look to other nations that cherish responsible gun ownership and start adopting all the other responsible laws they have on the books that helps prevent needless death on such a scale. Switzerland, Spain, the Nordics...they all have bad parenting, video games and depression too. But at least parents in those countries don't have nightmares on a routine basis of getting the call that their kid was mowed down during math class. I don't understand how any of us can live with such a pathetic and disgusting national trait as this.

People keep saying "no one wants to take your guns", yet mainstream politicians come out and say "hell yeah I want to take your guns" and we're the crazy ones for believing them?

The problem with all of the measures that you're mentioned is that, once again, they place an undue burden on the poor and nonwhite people. Telling people that live in high-crime areas that they aren't allowed to defend themselves because they can't afford to bypass the financial hurdles to doing so is unlawful and immoral....that's why poll taxes and literacy tests to vote were abolished long ago.

CaptHadley wrote:

The tone deaf award of the week goes to republican rep thomas massie. Nice family photo, just a couple days after another mass school shooting. Seriously is there something wrong with their brain functions?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -ammo/amp/

Ahh...good old Massie the idiot...the same person who vote no on the Trump Covid relief just bc he can...

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

By purchasing weapons, often unlawfully, or stealing them.

Well it can't be lawfully now can it. So that leaves pretty much stealing them. So how do they steal them, pretty much by breaking into homes and on occasion a gun shop. So if they're breaking into homes and are able to steal them, what does that say about homeowners and guns not being locked up.

Sure, some guns are stolen, but a lot are purchased by straw buyers. I.e., John Q can't buy a gun but Jane is in the same gang as John Q and buys one for him. Also, I don't think blaming the victim of home invasions is really the right way to go here.

So what you’re saying is that there needs to be some sort of tighter gun legislation to prevent this “strawman” scenario. Why shouldn’t the homeowner be blamed. They’re the ones not properly securing the firearms. I appreciate your posts, you make fine arguments for tighter, more regulated, firearm laws.

More thoughts and prayers.