Mass Shooting Megathread | Rancho Tehama, CA | 5 dead, shooter down

[IkeTheGeneric]

so what legislation would you suggest? redundant laws that state that the air force should follow its own rules? banning assault rifles, which would've prevented civilian intervention? there is no way at all that this could have been prevented with more legislation, considering that the whole reason that this happened was a guy with some gears to grind against a church was able to get a gun because of a logistical error

the most that can and should happen is that some air force officials get tried for negligence, much less sacked immediately

Here's the loving deal because you can't seem to understand the point here. Obviously something went wrong with the legal process of barring him from firearm purchasing that directly resulted in him purchasing a firearm that he shot and killed 26 innocent people with. When people are calling for "Gun control", they mean an ambiguous fix to whatever the problem or error resulted in him being allowed to purchase a firearm. That's it. There's nothing beyond calling for an explanation of what necessarily went wrong so this doesn't happen again in this way.

"there is no way at all that this could have been prevented with more legislation" Is a lie, you have just about as much knowledge on saying this as the people you're attacking here. It's just that while you're preferring to entrench in your belief that literally nothing could have prevented this, everyone else is thinking on how exactly it could have been prevented.

[Ad Bot]

[Tactical Nuke]

Here's the loving deal because you can't seem to understand the point here. Obviously something went wrong with the legal process of barring him from firearm purchasing that directly resulted in him purchasing a firearm that he shot and killed 26 innocent people with. When people are calling for "Gun control", they mean an ambiguous fix to whatever the problem or error resulted in him being allowed to purchase a firearm. That's it. There's nothing beyond calling for an explanation of what necessarily went wrong so this doesn't happen again in this way.

Oh, okay, so it's a meaningless loving virtue-signaling platitude, just like "thoughts and prayers", according to the same people who spout it constantly. Got it.

"there is no way at all that this could have been prevented with more legislation" Is a lie, you have just about as much knowledge on saying this as the people you're attacking here. It's just that while you're preferring to entrench in your belief that literally nothing could have prevented this, everyone else is thinking on how exactly it could have been prevented.

Then say what the loving solution is. Can you even do that? There isn't a loving copyright "someone's gonna steal my idea!!!!!1!1!" problem when it comes to this kind of stuff, so just blurt it out so that we can tell you specifically how your solution either wouldn't work or would've made it worse. "Common sense gun control" is one of the Dems biggest losing talking points for a reason.

[IkeTheGeneric]

Oh, okay, so it's a meaningless loving virtue-signaling platitude, just like "thoughts and prayers", according to the same people who spout it constantly. Got it.

That is not at all what I said, but you can take it however you want. Just displays to everyone else your flawed reasoning here.

Then say what the loving solution is. Can you even do that? There isn't a loving copyright "someone's gonna steal my idea!!!!!1!1!" problem when it comes to this kind of stuff, so just blurt it out so that we can tell you specifically how your solution either wouldn't work or would've made it worse. "Common sense gun control" is one of the Dems biggest losing talking points for a reason.

The reason we can't have any reasonable dialogue on gun control and ownership is because of volatile assclowns like you who decide to attack the person rather than the point. Leave your anger and feelings at the door before you try to argue, because you're not doing yourself any favors here.

[Tactical Nuke]

That is not at all what I said, but you can take it however you want. Just displays to everyone else your flawed reasoning here.

What you said is that the phrase "gun control" is used to basically say "fix this". Well, how are we going to fix it? Has anyone ever actually given specific ideas? You still haven't said anything about how to legislate this more than it already is in order to prevent it next time.

Meanwhile, I and pretty much everyone in the thread who is against this "gun control NOW" hysteria has specifically said that the USAF officials who handled the shooter's files should be dishonorably discharged and convicted on charges of gross negligence, which would encourage government agencies to take this kind of stuff more seriously. AKA, an actual fix that is real with real positive consequences.

The reason we can't have any reasonable dialogue on gun control and ownership is because of volatile assclowns like you who decide to attack the person rather than the point. Leave your anger and feelings at the door before you try to argue, because you're not doing yourself any favors here.

This is unbelievably ironic considering the outstanding amount of prominent lefties and liberals who are willing to blame everything on Republicans, gun owners and the NRA, and then call for "common sense gun control" without explaining specifically what it is. It's stunning.

[IkeTheGeneric]

This is unbelievably ironic considering the outstanding amount of prominent lefties and liberals who are willing to blame everything on Republicans, gun owners and the NRA, and then call for "common sense gun control" without explaining specifically what it is. It's stunning.

Where the hell does the irony come from? Idiots like you jump into the frey with a bone to pick and say stuff like this, completely ruining any semblance of a reasonable discussion. Nobody in their right mind is going to hash any of this out with you because disagreeing with your point gets you immediately painted as a mouth-frothing liberal who wants to steal muh guns. forget right off with this nonsense.

[Headcrab Zombie]

The reason we can't have any reasonable dialogue on gun control and ownership is because of volatile assclowns like you who decide to attack the person rather than the point. Leave your anger and feelings at the door before you try to argue, because you're not doing yourself any favors here.

You're being far more angry and aggressive then he is tbh

[RedGajin]

for the pro-gun boys, what about states where lax gun control is failing and leading to more deaths? prime case is indiana, which has p reserved gun control and funnels a lot of guns out to different states. people always bring up Chicago in these debates with something like: “strictest gun laws in the country, but highest death rate!”. a huge number of confiscated guns from chi comes from indiana. safe to assume that a fair number of the non-confiscated or untraceable guns come from there as well. do you think weaker gun laws would make Chicago safer? would making access to firearms easier for everyone stop gun violence?

from my perspective, the arguments for gun control revolve around the idea that you make it harder for guns to be obtained legally, and then sold illegally to criminals. in chi’s case, the guns are bought legally in indiana at things like guns shows (which is a controversial topic in itself), and then transported to chi. by doing that, you lower the rate of gun-related murders, which in turn means you would also put stricter regulation on types of guns that are allowed to be sold (clip size, caliber, etc). also things like psych evals

mass shootings are a lil seperate from this, as i believe most shootings have been unconvicted individuals whose biggest problems stem from mental health issues, so this is a lil off topic, just curious to hear some opinions

[Køtt]

are you saying chi as a short nickname for chicago redgaijin? sorry for the confusion

[RedGajin]

yeah, im lazy lol

[SeventhSandwich]

so what legislation would you suggest? redundant laws that state that the air force should follow its own rules? banning assault rifles, which would've prevented civilian intervention? there is no way at all that this could have been prevented with more legislation, considering that the whole reason that this happened was a guy with some gears to grind against a church was able to get a gun because of a logistical error

Easy, kick the stuff out of the Air Force with a massive fine. Fire everyone who was involved at every step of this forget-up. Create such a negative incentive for this kind of bullstuff that it never happens again.

The incentive system created by laws is based on what happens after you don't follow the law. Enforce the law we already passed, and if it's not good enough, make it stricter.

[Headcrab Zombie]

for the pro-gun boys, what about states where lax gun control is failing and leading to more deaths? prime case is indiana, which has p reserved gun control and funnels a lot of guns out to different states. people always bring up Chicago in these debates with something like: “strictest gun laws in the country, but highest death rate!”. a huge number of confiscated guns from chi comes from indiana. safe to assume that a fair number of the non-confiscated or untraceable guns come from there as well. do you think weaker gun laws would make Chicago safer? would making access to firearms easier for everyone stop gun violence?

from my perspective, the arguments for gun control revolve around the idea that you make it harder for guns to be obtained legally, and then sold illegally to criminals. in chi’s case, the guns are bought legally in indiana at things like guns shows (which is a controversial topic in itself), and then transported to chi. by doing that, you lower the rate of gun-related murders, which in turn means you would also put stricter regulation on types of guns that are allowed to be sold (clip size, caliber, etc). also things like psych evals

mass shootings are a lil seperate from this, as i believe most shootings have been unconvicted individuals whose biggest problems stem from mental health issues, so this is a lil off topic, just curious to hear some opinions

Chicago also has one of the biggest (or is it the biggest?) problem with gang violence. That's the root of the problem here. Guns are just the tool with which the problem is carried out. Banning guns is just a feel good measure to make politicians look like there doing something, instead of addressing the root problem. The more time we spend bickering about "ban assault weapons!!!" the less time we spend addressing the root issue.

Speaking of which, has anyone every looked into the specific legislation some states have passed against "assault weapons"? The only difference between a legal gun and an illegal "assault weapon" could be something like the addition of an adjustable stock. Now, can anyone who is advocating the banning of "assault weapons" explain to me how an adjustable stock makes a weapon more dangerous? It becomes even sillier when you release it works in reverse: that you can make an otherwise illegal gun suddenly become legal, simply by removing such harmless features.

[Red Spy]

nuking indiana sounds like a good idea

[Kidalex90]

i was friends with the shooter and the reason he did it was because he couldnt find any import subwooferzz for his ride

[Headcrab Zombie]

i was friends with the shooter and the reason he did it was because he couldnt find any import subwooferzz for his ride

ban assault subwoofers

[RedGajin]

Chicago also has one of the biggest (or is it the biggest?) problem with gang violence. That's the root of the problem here. Guns are just the tool with which the problem is carried out. Banning guns is just a feel good measure to make politicians look like there doing something, instead of addressing the root problem. The more time we spend bickering about "ban assault weapons!!!" the less time we spend addressing the root issue.

well yeah chicago has a gang problem, but wouldn't you consider guns to be a huge contributor to that problem as a whole? yeah theres other issues like stuffty schooling, horrible housing problems, etc. guns are just another factor, and this applies to cities outside of chicago as well. getting rid of guns wouldnt remove the problem tomorrow obviously, but the deathrate would no doubt go down, and itd be harder for gangs to operate overall. you dont think any sort of additional laws should be passed at all in indiana to help stop this? why? whats the downside? do those benefits outweigh helping to deter 4000+ gun-related incidents per year (using only chicago as an example)? is regulating these weapon sales too much government interference?

again, i dont think something like this specific situation is a catch-all solution to everything, but it helps, and benfits the general public.