(October 3, 2017 at 2:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 2:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: How is ANY of this about religion, and not about the obvious need for gun control?

Here's the problem-- when a guy is "sane," he collects enough weapons for a fucking army.  Then he goes off, and he's still got the guns.  So he rains down death on a crowd of civilians.  And I should point out that gun control and mental health care are not exclusive-- only a moron would make those a dilemma: "Should we control weapons OR help sick people get better?"

I agree. Both mental health and gun control need worked on. It's our best chance at preventing these sorts of things.

I agree too. But neither will happen because there's never enough money for one and way too much money for (and from) the other.

(October 3, 2017 at 2:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 2:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Just asking; do we know what the motive was yet?

No. But his brother said he had no religious or political affiliation.

His brother also said he wasn't a gun enthusiast. I question whether or not his brother knew him well enough to assert this.

Question: Are you aware of the Christian Identity movement? Because those particular Christians are responsible for plenty of death.

(October 3, 2017 at 6:37 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 5:53 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: People always get bent out of shape over a mass killing but they ignore the single killings that take tens of thousands of lives.  So until they get as outraged over one killing as they get outraged over multiple killings it seems to be just fake outrage on their part.

Look at the number of people shot YTD in Chicago =

"Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 497
Shot & Wounded: 2390
Total Shot: 2887
Total Homicides: 534"

http://heyjackass.com

Yea so? I think some have missed my prior posts where I made this point. Mass shootings ARE NOT the bulk of firearm deaths. But using Chicago is the often go to race baiting by the far right. I am not saying that is your intent, but i see that City used all the time. 

The vast majority of firearm death are not stranger on stranger. The top firearm related death is suicide. Second is domestic violence, third is accidental, last is stranger on stranger. Chicago is used by asshole bigots to say, "blacks kill blacks", yea and whites kill whites.

Of course the bigger the population the more potential for crime, but that is the same for any city in America and the world. What prevents crime, isn't skin color or "just act white", what prevents crime are livable economic conditions. 

This post still does not mean people should have to worry about some nut committing mass murder. There are only TWO things that will reduce gun violence. 

1. Stop making firearms like candy, don't make access so easy.
2. Provide economic stability for urban, suburban and rural, livable wages for all.

The point of using Chicago is that the site has detailed stats on the murders and shootings committed in the city.  I'm sure that someone could replicate the format for all cities across the country but it seems that no one has done so.  Therefore it's a business opportunity for whoever wants to do it.  Of course other cities probably keep their stats confidential and would refuse to share them.  

Nothing will reduce gun violence in America as long as people can get guns and ammo.  Shooting each other is the favorite way Americans settle disagreements with each other.  What do you see when you watch westerns, crime shows, zombie movies, and action movies?  The characters are blasting each other with hot lead.  Americans have been brainwashed their entire lives to shoot people who piss them off.  

When Aaron Burr snuffed out Alexander Hamilton they weren't fighting over wages.  http://www.history.com/this-day-in-histo...on-in-duel

The hard right like to use Chicago because of it's connection to Obama. The actual numbers should speak for themselves.

(October 3, 2017 at 10:05 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 9:43 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That city is used not because of racial composition, but because it has such a high rate of firearms crimes despite having some of the strictest local gun-control laws in America.

Um no, that is certainly the excuse used yes, but it is still dog whistle bullshit for assholes like 45 to call black NFL players "sons of bitches".

But we can go there if you wish. It isn't a matter of the laws being strict, it is a matter of not having a nationwide standard. Of course the laws wont work because guns don't magically stop working in transport.

It still amounts to access. Not legal vs illegal. 

This is simply more bullshit the nutters use to make excuses to do nothing. So when they cant flat out sell bigotry, they make it about states rights.

And again, I live in the sticks and I hear stories in NC in a rural area, about gun violence here too. The only reason you hear about more in the city is because it has a bigger population. It isn't a mater of strict, it is a matter of a flooded market nationwide.

Chicago is in Illinois.  The Illinois State Constitution bill of rights gives people the right to own guns.  

"SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)"
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm

So the question is does the use of police power become unconstitutional if it deprives people of their constitutional rights?  If the clause "Subject only to the police power" is added to all of the other rights would the people have any real rights?

If he had all of these guns I'd like to know where he went to practice and learn proficiency with each one of them. It's not like you can just buy one of the shelf, lock n load, then rock and roll. It does not sound like he had 23 of the same gun.

(October 3, 2017 at 7:15 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: If he had all of these guns I'd like to know where he went to practice and learn proficiency with each one of them. It's not like you can just buy one of the shelf, lock n load, then rock and roll. It does not sound like he had 23 of the same gun.

He didn't rock and roll. He was listening to country music.

(October 3, 2017 at 7:16 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 7:15 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: If he had all of these guns I'd like to know where he went to practice and learn proficiency with each one of them. It's not like you can just buy one of the shelf, lock n load, then rock and roll. It does not sound like he had 23 of the same gun.

He didn't rock and roll. He was listening to country music.

Nobody ever says WHICH COUNTRY...

Extremely sad.

Perhaps more firearm regulation and funding for mental health services is needed.

(October 3, 2017 at 7:16 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:

(October 3, 2017 at 7:15 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: If he had all of these guns I'd like to know where he went to practice and learn proficiency with each one of them. It's not like you can just buy one of the shelf, lock n load, then rock and roll. It does not sound like he had 23 of the same gun.

He didn't rock and roll. He was listening to country music.

I don't like C&W, either but I don't shoot up the audience because of it.