Another one this morning...... UGH. What.The.Hell.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officials-1-dead-3-wounded-in-university-shooting-in-ariz/ar-AAfhelw?li=BBieTUX?ocid=ansmsnnews11

 

The media is way to eager to call something like this a school shooting.  Of course any suggestion the media has an agenda or a bias is crazy talk.

Semantics seem important at a time like this....sigh.

Another one today at Texas Southern University as well with two dead and the shooter still on the loose.

 

The media is way to eager to call something like this a school shooting.  Of course any suggestion the media has an agenda or a bias is crazy talk.

It happened at a school and students were shot.  It is a school shooting. 

 

It isn't a mass shooting like the other ones since it was based on a confrontation between students.  But it is still a school shooting and an indication that guns are way too accessible in the US.

The media is way to eager to call something like this a school shooting.  Of course any suggestion the media has an agenda or a bias is crazy talk.

Non school shootings are so much less harmful.

The media is way to eager to call something like this a school shooting. 

Exactly. "Collateral Damage From Maintaining Our Liberty", please.

 

It happened at a school and students were shot.  It is a school shooting. 

 

It isn't a mass shooting like the other ones since it was based on a confrontation between students.  But it is still a school shooting and an indication that guns are way too accessible in the US.

 

It happened outdoors at 1 AM.  On a college campus and involving people that at times attend classes.  The media and Democrats know school shooting sells their agenda.  I suppose they can put this one in the stats as a mass school shooting so they can go play politics.  The Democrats had the House Senate and the White House at the time of Sandy Hook.  While I disagree with what they wanted to do they should have done it if they actually cared about the issue in anything more then a political sense.

 

It happened outdoors at 1 AM.  On a college campus and involving people that at times attend classes.  The media and Democrats know school shooting sells their agenda.  I suppose they can put this one in the stats as a mass school shooting so they can go play politics.  The Democrats had the House Senate and the White House at the time of Sandy Hook.  While I disagree with what they wanted to do they should have done it if they actually cared about the issue in anything more then a political sense.

 

Who seriously cares about the politics? Someone lost their life. It's a shooting that happened at a school. If political labeling is my first reaction to such a tragedy, I'd re-evaluate life priorities immediately.

 

Who seriously cares about the politics? Someone lost their life. It's a shooting that happened at a school. If political labeling is my first reaction to such a tragedy, I'd re-evaluate life priorities immediately.

 

The president.  His reaction to what happened in Oregon is disgusting.  If he wants to make a policy change then go ahead and do the things required to make that change.  Yeah the other side might not make it easy but when you actually want to make a policy change you have to give in on something else.    His words sound like he is trying to do something, but his actions make it very clear that this is about politics for him.

 

Meanwhile in Chicago... crap not close enough to a school who cares right?

Edited October 10, 201511 yr by mikecgrimes

 

The president.  His reaction to what happened in Oregon is disgusting.  If he wants to make a policy change then go ahead and do the things required to make that change.  Yeah the other side might not make it easy but when you actually want to make a policy change you have to give in on something else.    His words sound like he is trying to do something, but his actions make it very clear that this is about politics for him.

 

Meanwhile in Chicago... crap not close enough to a school who cares right?

 

 

The president.  His reaction to what happened in Oregon is disgusting.  If he wants to make a policy change then go ahead and do the things required to make that change.  Yeah the other side might not make it easy but when you actually want to make a policy change you have to give in on something else.    His words sound like he is trying to do something, but his actions make it very clear that this is about politics for him.

Obama 2016!

Edited October 11, 201511 yr by PseudoSABR

mikeg, some people feel that reason and logic aren't working, so why not try politics.

 

It would be a refreshing change if the next school shooter only had a couple plinking pistols at his disposal. There might not be any deaths in that instance. Military grade weapons need to be off limits. Not banned but certainly restricted somehow. Nobody is allowed to drive a military tank down the street. Everyone knows there are 2nd amendment issues we need to work out. If Reagan can be won over to the side of some level of gun control/accountability, then the NRA and the right should be open to that also. But for anything to work, we do need Democrats to show some fortitude and quit being intimidated, however. Lots of Democrats are gun owners so it's not really a political issue, but making it political is worth a try in some minds. It could also be a public health issue.

If you're going to complain about one side taking a crisis and turning it into a political advantage, I have an old saying about pots and kettles for you.

 

It's sort of the nature of politics, it isn't pretty but everyone plays it.  And since our country desperately needs a rethought approach to guns (from laws to culture to entertainment) one has to wonder what it will take for that to happen.

The president.  His reaction to what happened in Oregon is disgusting.  If he wants to make a policy change then go ahead and do the things required to make that change.  Yeah the other side might not make it easy but when you actually want to make a policy change you have to give in on something else.    His words sound like he is trying to do something, but his actions make it very clear that this is about politics for him.

 

Meanwhile in Chicago... crap not close enough to a school who cares right?

I think what is disgusting is the actual shooting.

 

Second would be attempts to deflect from the shooting by blaming "politics" while throwing massive amounts of money and political clout against any and all attempts to develop rational and enforceable gun legislation.

Not school related, but sports related.

This country is a ****ing joke when it comes to guns, is there anywhere in the US where you can go where you won't be within 50 feet of a fire arm?

 

http://deadspin.com/fight-in-cowboys-parking-lot-ends-in-shooting-victim-f-1735992124

 

 is there anywhere in the US where you can go where you won't be within 50 feet of a fire arm?

 

 

Probably more then 99% of the US at any given time.  If there's one thing the irrational fear is good for it's putting a little more feat in the minds of criminals and would be criminals.

Knowledge of gun proliferation stopping criminals is even more ridiculous than gun laws stopping criminals.

So I was reading about the shooting in Sweden....it occurs to me even more just how different our circumstances are here than Europe.

 

Just a thought, I often hear the US being compared to Europe (especially in an election cycle) and started chewing on this as food for thought.

An interesting survey from Politico of 45 US mayors (they list which ones at the end of the survey), there's diversity in their selection, but whether it's representative of the entire country is hard to say.  In any case, I found their findings rather relevant. Nearly ninety percent of those surveyed suggested Congress is not doing enough on gun control.  

 

As the survey suggests, as population increases in geographical density, the gun control problem becomes more stark.  But that has little relevance to those living in rural America.  It's hard to protect the privileges of country folk, while maintaining the gun control America's mayors would have.   

Edited October 27, 201511 yr by PseudoSABR

I don't think it should be all that surprising that a vast majority of Democrat mayors want gun control.  I tend to agree with them, though, especially about the possibility of allowing different gun control laws in urban/city areas compared to rural ones.  

 

I don't think it should be all that surprising that a vast majority of Democrat mayors want gun control.  I tend to agree with them, though, especially about the possibility of allowing different gun control laws in urban/city areas compared to rural ones.  

In Chicago, even the police want more/better gun control laws.

 

In Chicago, even the police want more/better gun control laws.

 

Oh I know, but even then Chicago has a fairly tough set of gun control laws.  But Chicago is sort of a unique case and not a good case against gun control.  

 

I honestly don't know how we pass any gun legislation that makes a difference in the current climate.  I know that's pessimistic, but it's also just being honest.  We have to find a way to neuter the NRA but I don't know how that happens without a long, long campaign.

 

Oh I know, but even then Chicago has a fairly tough set of gun control laws.  But Chicago is sort of a unique case and not a good case against gun control.  

 

I honestly don't know how we pass any gun legislation that makes a difference in the current climate.  I know that's pessimistic, but it's also just being honest.  We have to find a way to neuter the NRA but I don't know how that happens without a long, long campaign.

The main problem with Chicago (as it has been pointed out) is that all it takes is a 30 minute drive to an Indiana gun show for ANYONE (Felon, etc) to get a gun without so much as a quick background check or a waiting period.

 

At the very least, can you support closing the ridiculous gun show loophole?

Oh I know, but even then Chicago has a fairly tough set of gun control laws.  But Chicago is sort of a unique case and not a good case against gun control.  

 

I honestly don't know how we pass any gun legislation that makes a difference in the current climate.  I know that's pessimistic, but it's also just being honest.  We have to find a way to neuter the NRA but I don't know how that happens without a long, long campaign.

Take the gloves off. Get down to their level. "Willie Horten" them in ads.

 

"The NRA opposed gun laws in X state. These people are dead because of the actions of the NRA."

 

Keep pounding away.

 

Take the gloves off. Get down to their level. "Willie Horten" them in ads.

"The NRA opposed gun laws in X state. These people are dead because of the actions of the NRA."

Keep pounding away.

 

Exactly.  It's going to have to be a dirty, ugly, nasty fight.  But it's one that HAS to be won.

 

You don't have to like it, but the NRA controls the system because we haven't properly destroyed their image.  I talked earlier about tobacco being a model and that's what it has to be.  It has to be relentless and ruthless until they start to feel it.

 

The main problem with Chicago (as it has been pointed out) is that all it takes is a 30 minute drive to an Indiana gun show for ANYONE (Felon, etc) to get a gun without so much as a quick background check or a waiting period.

 

At the very least, can you support closing the ridiculous gun show loophole?

 

I support pretty much any kind of gun control.  Seriously, pass whatever you want.  I don't like guns and find no redeeming value in them.

 

How I feel about legislation is different then being honest about how that legislation will (if at all) actually work.  The gun show thing is silly, but it's a drop in the bucket.  Feel free to put those drops in, but filling the bucket isn't going to happen that way.  We have to neuter the NRA's influence until we can pass gun control that will actually make a difference.