Shots Fired @ FLL

The only logical conclusion I can draw from your post is that, proportionately speaking, we therefore must have the most amount of sociopaths of all the 1st world countries?

Because if it isn't guns killing people, then they would be homemade bombs and trucks. Like that happens in the UK, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, etc. ??







But in America, that doesn't happen. Some of the worse driving into a crowd incidents here were old person driving or drunk-type. Not premeditated murder. (And yes, there have been a couple cases of that). But by and large, mass deaths in this country continue to be via gun. Not bomb, not truck, not car, and not knife.

Because 1st world European countries have a stricter gun policy, but presumably a similar number of proportionate pyscho/nutjobs, you would think you' see more cars ramming into people or bombs going off. But that's not happening. Those in Europe are almost exclusively reserved for terrorists.

So no, the argument of "if not guns, then bombs or cars/trucks" doesn't really bear truth based on the evidence of other countries.
Guns are readily available, so they don't need to rent a truck. Maybe we do have more sociopaths than anybody else. Our point is that a lack of readily available guns would not limit the harm a sociopath can do on a massive scale. You might have an argument in regards to impulse domestic gun violence, but not here.
 
Guns are readily available, so they don't need to rent a truck. Maybe we do have more sociopaths than anybody else. Our point is that a lack of readily available guns would not limit the harm a sociopath can do on a massive scale. You might have an argument in regards to impulse domestic gun violence, but not here.

We'll see. If the point is maximize damage, why even bother with a gun. Just rent a truck and go into a crowd, right? Still doesn't happen. This guy killed 5 and injured 8. He could have rented a truck and run over and kill more. But he didn't. It's a gun culture thing.

No point arguing more and more over the same thing beaten to death already. Lets just say this mass shooting isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last.
 
We'll see. If the point is maximize damage, why even bother with a gun. Just rent a truck and go into a crowd, right? Still doesn't happen. This guy killed 5 and injured 8. He could have rented a truck and run over and kill more. But he didn't. It's a gun culture thing.

No point arguing more and more over the same thing beaten to death already. Lets just say this mass shooting isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last.
Agreed
 
We'll see. If the point is maximize damage, why even bother with a gun. Just rent a truck and go into a crowd, right? Still doesn't happen. This guy killed 5 and injured 8. He could have rented a truck and run over and kill more. But he didn't. It's a gun culture thing.

No point arguing more and more over the same thing beaten to death already. Lets just say this mass shooting isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last.

Not a gun culture thing. Just a culture thing.
 
But he wasn't a criminal until he went to the bathroom, loaded his gun, and put it in the waistband. Now a law was broken. 15 seconds later, shots are fired.
Actually, he was. He had committed several crimes including domestic violence - which would have precluded him from owning a gun. DA/PA dropped or Deferred prosecution so it no longer triggered, sadly, under the terms of the deferment in march he would have been found guilty at the rehearing most likely.
https://www.scribd.com/document/335895908/Santiago-Complaint
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/esteb...dale-airport-shooting-shooter-gunman-mugshot/

on the 4473, he would have had to falsify 11)B,D,H and possibly I(some states deferred adjudication is still a guilty plea). Legally he would not have been able to purchase that gun. Again... if we cant enforce the laws we have - what makes you think new ones will change anything?
 
So take away the gun and what does it become.

I know my article was old, but it's still relevant. Take into account our population, and we are on par.

We are not even close. Those numbers are slanted with one-off large scale events like the Norway shooting, and they don't include the recent mass shooting era in the US.


Actually, he was. He had committed several crimes including domestic violence - which would have precluded him from owning a gun. DA/PA dropped or Deferred prosecution so it no longer triggered, sadly, under the terms of the deferment in march he would have been found guilty at the rehearing most likely.
https://www.scribd.com/document/335895908/Santiago-Complaint
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/esteb...dale-airport-shooting-shooter-gunman-mugshot/

on the 4473, he would have had to falsify 11)B,D,H and possibly I(some states deferred adjudication is still a guilty plea). Legally he would not have been able to purchase that gun. Again... if we cant enforce the laws we have - what makes you think new ones will change anything?


Thank the NRA and other pressures for the 2A for the already lax engagement of gun laws. Of course that happened in a very gun-friendly state.

Not a gun culture thing. Just a culture thing.

No, it's a gun culture thing.
 
We are not even close. Those numbers are slanted with one-off large scale events like the Norway shooting, and they don't include the recent mass shooting era in the US.

You keep going back to the one outlier there (Norway). So, let's remove that one outlier. Now what? We fare pretty well.

No, I will not give up my guns, and I won't stand by the wayside and be regulated to death by the liberal anti-gun activists. The cities with the worst gun crimes are the same cities run by hard core liberals, with the most strict gun laws.

Until no one is armed, everyone should be armed. And there are millions of unregistered weapons in this country. So tell me how you plan on getting rid of those?

This, as with just about every other mass shooting, was a complete blunder from those charged with overseeing those who shouldn't own guns, for whatever reason you'd like to use. They had their chance to prevent this, and failed miserably. The laws work, when people competent enough to enforce them, actually do. But we'll see another "safety measure" come out of this, to protect those who are supposed to enforce the rules and regs, because they lack the ability to do their jobs right, all the while, slowly eroding away at the rights of people who follow the laws that are already in place, not because of my actions, but because of the actions of this guy, and the FBI's inability to DO THEIR JOB!

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people like you, lumping people like me into the same category as guys like this, because I have guns, and like to shoot. This is an issue that should be taken up with those in charge of these things, not responsible gun owners.
 
@mshunter
I disagree with your statement of "until no one has guns."
I'm a part time military dude, who flies a bird with guns on it. It's for that very reason you need to keep yours.

IMG_2175.JPG
 
[QUOTE="Cherokee_Cruiser, post: 2643840, member: 183"
No, it's a gun culture thing.[/QUOTE]

I'll offer this:

My cousin is an MD, just moved back stateside after over seven years in rural Honduras.
He mentioned how he'd seen more gunshot wounds in 5 months here than in 5 years there, because of the lack of guns in Honduras.
He then said they used machetes and hatchets on each other, way more often than we use guns on each other.

If there are no guns, there are blades.
If no blades, there are clubs.
If no clubs, there are hands.

It's a culture thing.
 
Thank the NRA and other pressures for the 2A for the already lax engagement of gun laws. Of course that happened in a very gun-friendly state.

NRA has nothing to do with the manner in which a judge, PA or police pursue domestic abuse, assault, battery and theft charges.

He racked up several violent charges after the deferred adjudication sentence for the Dom. Abuse.

This should have kicked the deferred adjudication back to active status with sentencing. Again- removing his legal ability to own the weapon.

The VA and mental health establishment failed him.

The justice department failed us. He should not have legally been able to possess the weapon under current law. I don't know why they let him slip, but, it had nothing to do with "lax" gun laws or the NRA.
 
[QUOTE="Cherokee_Cruiser, post: 2643840, member: 183"
No, it's a gun culture thing.

I'll offer this:

My cousin is an MD, just moved back stateside after over seven years in rural Honduras.
He mentioned how he'd seen more gunshot wounds in 5 months here than in 5 years there, because of the lack of guns in Honduras.
He then said they used machetes and hatchets on each other, way more often than we use guns on each other.

If there are no guns, there are blades.
If no blades, there are clubs.
If no clubs, there are hands.

It's a culture thing.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because culturally we are pretty much the same as Honduras...

That's like saying that I drink a lot of beer because I can't find meth.
 
Back
Top