ongoing mass shootings thread

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

I'm curious as to what is so "stupid" about it. So people who are in situations where they are legitimately in fear of death or serious-bodily harm should not be allowed to defend themselves without fear of prosecution or civil suit? Or be forced to run away, which might not be an option or may make things worse, instead of defending themselves from a legitimate threat? Or run from someone breaking into your home (where you have every right to be) instead of defending yourself?

Define legitimate.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Define legitimate.

Isn't that what dictionaries are for?

I think any reasonable person would be afraid for their life if someone forcefully entered their home with a weapon, or pulled a weapon on them somewhere out on the street.

Getting popcorn thrown at you shouldn't qualify though. Even I will admit that.

[PhilsFan]

I'm asking you, because the law sure as shit doesn't define it.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I'm asking you, because the law sure as shit doesn't define it.

That's why we have a court system and judicial branch to interpret the law.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

That's why we have a court system and judicial branch to interpret the law.

Can't we just vote on the definition? The people have a right to vote!

[bigjohn2441]

I think the definition of "legitimate" is circumstances where a reasonable person would be in fear of death/serious bodily injury, and their actions would be justified to a reasonable person also based on the situation and circumstances.

I imagine this is the standard most police depts. and courts go by when they decide to press charges or not.

[Danny Boy]

University of Oklahoma today.

Yay, 'Murica. Land of the daily campus shooting.

[Irvine511]

freedom sounds like a gunshot.

[Diemen]

Might be a false alarm.

University of Oklahoma says no sign of shots fired, after warning | Reuters

[BEAL]

Shooting at a mall in Maryland.

Three dead, which includes the shooter.

If you're going to kill yourself, I'm not sure the argument of eliminating "gun free zones" is a real deterrent.

But since we refuse to do anything regarding guns, this is just how life is. If you go anywhere, there's a chance you can get shot.

[Irvine511]

from conservative David Frum:

With Guns, the Threatened Can Quickly Become the Threat

Another school shooting today. A 13-year-old opened fire at a middle school in Roswell, New Mexico, critically wounding two.

As I write, details on the incident remain scarce. But here’s something we do know. After this shooting, as after so many horrors past, a great number of Americans will insist that the right response to gun violence is more guns in more places. They believe that their guns keep them safe.

One of those who believe that—at least until recently—was Curtis Reeves. The 71-year-old former Tampa police captain had founded the city’s SWAT team. Retired from the force, Reeves still carried a .38 caliber handgun. On Monday, he carried his gun with him to a movie theater in Wesley Chapel, Florida, an exurban community 26 miles north of Tampa. Reeves became annoyed by a man in the row directly ahead of him who texted before the show. Reeves complained first to the man, then to the theater manager. A confrontation erupted. Voices were raised. Popcorn was thrown. And suddenly: a man was dead.

The dead man was named Chad Oulson. You know his story. It was the big gun atrocity of the day for the 24 hours before the Roswell shooting. Gun atrocities occur so thick and fast that few of them gain public attention, and even fewer hold it for long. Yet the Oulson killing broke through, at least for a little while, because it seemed so unusually pointless and stupid. As the sheriff of Pasco County told reporters afterward: “To have a retired police officer—I don’t know what he was thinking at the time. I can tell you, anybody, over a cellphone, to take their life, it’s ridiculous.”

Ridiculous doesn’t begin to capture it. Oulson was texting his three-year-old daughter. He and his wife were away from home together, and he’d kept their phones switched on so his child could reach him. Now that child is fatherless, and the wife is a widow. During the altercation, she placed her hand on her husband’s chest to restrain him. The same bullet that killed Chad Oulson struck and wounded Nicole Oulson’s hand.

Yet it’s possible the situation did not seem remotely ridiculous to the shooter. If witness reports are accurate, Oulson was the first to raise his voice. Oulson was a tall man, well built, and thirty years younger than Reeves. Reeves may well have felt threatened. And isn’t that the very point and purpose of a gun? To be drawn when its owner feels threatened? “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

Seated beside Oulson in the theater was Charles Cummings, a Vietnam War Marine combat veteran. Oulson’s body slumped onto Cummings. It was Cummings’ 16-year-old son, Alex, who called 911. “I can’t believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie,” Cummings said after it was all over. But of course people do bring pistols to the movies! In the wake of the slaughter in the Aurora movie theater, how often did we hear it said that people should bring guns to movies?

“Gun-free zones are a magnet for those who want to kill many people quickly,” wrote noted gun advocate John Lott after the Aurora shooting. “[O]ut of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of [the killer’s] apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, [Aurora] was the only one where guns were banned.” Had the theater permitted guns, Lott continued, Holmes might have been stopped. “With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.”

There was at least one adult who carried a gun in the theater in which Oulson was shot to death. Perhaps Reeves imagined that he might use his weapon to prevent some terrible crime. Instead, he committed one.

One statistic often tossed about in the gun debate is the claim that guns are used for self-defense some 2.5 million times a year, once every 13 seconds. That statistic is based on a set of surveys conducted before 1995 in which gun owners were asked whether they could remember using a gun to meet any kind of threat over periods that varied from one year to as many as five years. The phrasing of the questions could include anything from confronting an armed intruder to picking up a shotgun before investigating a squawk in the chicken coop. This kind of hazy self-reporting, conducted almost a generation ago, is not likely to generate any kind of reliable information.

But there’s a deeper problem with arguments about “defensive gun use”—a problem forced home by the fatality in Wesley Chapel. When a gun owner self-reports that he or she brandished or used a weapon in self-defense, the gun owner stakes a claim that the person on the muzzle side of the gun was acting improperly and that the gun owner was acting appropriately and responsibly. Yet that is not always true. It is probably not even often true. Curtis Reeves was a man highly trained in the use of firearms: not just a police officer, but a police officer who had founded a tactical response unit. Yet the best-case interpretation of Reeves’ actions is that in a crisis, he panicked.


And the worst case? The worst case is that many people who carry guns for what they call self-defense are really engaged in intimidation and aggression. Here’s another Florida case:

Michael Dunn, a 45-year-old man, pulled into a Jacksonville gas station in November 2012. The next car over was occupied by four teenagers playing loud music. Dunn is white; the four young men, black. Dunn ordered the teens to turn down their music. They refused. An argument erupted. Dunn drew a gun and fired eight or nine shots at the teens, killing one of them. Dunn claimed that he had glimpsed a gun inside the teens’ car and therefore felt threatened.

It’s a good guess though that if Dunn had not been armed, the argument over the music would not have escalated to the point of violence—just as, if Reeves had left his gun at home, the argument over the texting would have subsided without incident. When gun advocates claim that guns protect people, they omit to say that guns protect people in situations that would not have been dangerous in the first place if the guns had been left at home.

That’s something to remember as Americans seek to understand—and try to find adequate responses to—this latest school shooting, and the many more that seem sadly certain to follow.

[anitram]

If that idiot retired cop hadn't brought his gun with him to the theatre, both he and the man who is now dead would be at home with their families.

[Danny Boy]

Oh, I don't know. He could have sustained a fatal popcorn injury. Slipped in the butter and suffered a closed head injury and whatnot.

[the iron horse]

The recent mall shooting:
Don't shoot the messenger here. I was searching for some info on the
shooting and this is the only one I found with any detail. Information like this is not being reported by major media or being acknowledge by the government.

Liberalism Truly is a Mental Disorder – Exhibit A: Maryland Mall Shooter - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost

[Diemen]

You're posting an article that claims that liberalism is a mental disorder, and trying to say that you were really just looking for info on the shooting?

Information like this isn't being reported by the major media because it's not objectively researched and verified information, it's openly biased, us vs. them, culture warrior ranting.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

The recent mall shooting:
Don't shoot the messenger here. I was searching for some info on the
shooting and this is the only one I found with any detail. Information like this is not being reported by major media or being acknowledge by the government.

Liberalism Truly is a Mental Disorder – Exhibit A: Maryland Mall Shooter - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost

what horseshit. wow. it reads like satire.

Here’s the real issue we have to face with liberalism folks. Somehow, they are able to form any argument to their favor no matter how it may seem to support our positions. The recent Maryland Mall shooting is a perfect example of this. While pro-gun conservatives are quick to point out that the shooting occurred in another “gun free zone,” we are overlooking an important detail pertaining to the minds of liberals. Through the use of the Hegelian Dialectic, (I have described this in many articles, but in this case I will allow the reader to research it) liberals can turn any failure into an argument supporting their position. The big detail to pay attention to here isn’t the failure of gun free zones, but the fact that the shooter, another mentally ill liberal ding dong obtained a dangerous 12 gauge shot gun legally from a “local sporting goods store.” This is designed to strike fear into the public and at the same time allows liberals to take advantage of the failing gun free zone madness and look to another way of achieving their objectives. In this case, they are taking full advantage of highlighting just how easy it was for a mentally ill person to obtain a dangerous weapon. They will then readily admit that the gun free zone is a failure as long as these weapons are able to be purchased by any Joe Blow on the street. Thus they create a frenzied mentality that more gun laws are needed. Diabolical, to say the least, but it’s the way a mind trained in Marxism works.

Read more at Liberalism Truly is a Mental Disorder – Exhibit A: Maryland Mall Shooter - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost

truly, this is the news the lamestream media DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR!

how about this as the actual news the news doesn't want you to hear: some people actually know more about things than you do.

The Death Of Expertise

By Tom Nichols
JANUARY 17, 2014

I am (or at least think I am) an expert. Not on everything, but in a particular area of human knowledge, specifically social science and public policy. When I say something on those subjects, I expect that my opinion holds more weight than that of most other people.

I never thought those were particularly controversial statements. As it turns out, they’re plenty controversial. Today, any assertion of expertise produces an explosion of anger from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are nothing more than fallacious “appeals to authority,” sure signs of dreadful “elitism,” and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a “real” democracy.

But democracy, as I wrote in an essay about C.S. Lewis and the Snowden affair, denotes a system of government, not an actual state of equality. It means that we enjoy equal rights versus the government, and in relation to each other. Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or equal knowledge. It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion about anything is as good as anyone else’s.” And yet, this is now enshrined as the credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense.

What’s going on here?

I fear we are witnessing the “death of expertise”: a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any division between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, between those of any achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not mean the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in various areas. There will always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

What has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.

This is a very bad thing. Yes, it’s true that experts can make mistakes, as disasters from thalidomide to the Challenger explosion tragically remind us. But mostly, experts have a pretty good batting average compared to laymen: doctors, whatever their errors, seem to do better with most illnesses than faith healers or your Aunt Ginny and her special chicken gut poultice. To reject the notion of expertise, and to replace it with a sanctimonious insistence that every person has a right to his or her own opinion, is silly.

Worse, it’s dangerous. The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it’s a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself. Yes, I said “Western civilization”: that paternalistic, racist, ethnocentric approach to knowledge that created the nuclear bomb, the Edsel, and New Coke, but which also keeps diabetics alive, lands mammoth airliners in the dark, and writes documents like the Charter of the United Nations.

This isn’t just about politics, which would be bad enough. No, it’s worse than that: the perverse effect of the death of expertise is that without real experts, everyone is an expert on everything. To take but one horrifying example, we live today in an advanced post-industrial country that is now fighting a resurgence of whooping cough — a scourge nearly eliminated a century ago — merely because otherwise intelligent people have been second-guessing their doctors and refusing to vaccinate their kids after reading stuff written by people who know exactly zip about medicine. (Yes, I mean people like Jenny McCarthy.

In politics, too, the problem has reached ridiculous proportions. People in political debates no longer distinguish the phrase “you’re wrong” from the phrase “you’re stupid.” To disagree is to insult. To correct another is to be a hater. And to refuse to acknowledge alternative views, no matter how fantastic or inane, is to be closed-minded.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I was searching for some info on the
shooting and this is the only one I found with any detail.

That article had NO DETAIL ABOUT THE SHOOTING.

That article tells me a lot more about your biases than it does about the shooting.

[the iron horse]

One of the links given in the article I posted.
If I find one like it by a main stream media, I will post it.

Liberalism, Mental Disorders and the Maryland Mall Shooter

[Diemen]

Did you think this article, and the article you linked to previously, are fair, well reasoned and objective, IH?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

The recent mall shooting:

Don't shoot the messenger here. I was searching for some info on the

shooting and this is the only one I found with any detail. Information like this is not being reported by major media or being acknowledge by the government.



Liberalism Truly is a Mental Disorder – Exhibit A: Maryland Mall Shooter - Freedom Outpost | Freedom Outpost

Anyone who writes these articles are exploiting an opportunity to demonize political beliefs. Neither this article nor the one later takes a good analytical look at what causes mass shootings in this country and don't really care to do so. The same could be said about anyone who posts them.

I also think anyone who says being liberal or progressive is a mental illness must have issues too. It's also an insult to anyone who has a real illness, which further shows how callous and exploitive these articles are. Meaning, they're talking about mentally disturbed people yet exploit what those people did to call an opposed belief a mental illness.
I need to find a pic of someone flipping the finger right now