Shooting at Baltimore Mall

[Jack Spicer]

Well, that's sad. We need Dexter.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Something needs to change in this country. It's getting out of hand.

The same shit keeps happening every year but it's becoming way more frequent.

 

[Cursed Prince]

You really think its more likely that people will have guns when they need to "protect" then that people will have guns when they want to shoot like this?
If its easy to get guns, lets say everyone in a country has a gun then yea sure that could happen, but thats not realistic, if its easy to get guns then its more likely that people will get guns for situations like this, guns were obviously easy to get and did you read about anyone with a gun stopping him? Grow up.
This is the real world not your fantasy where you feel cocky for being able to shoot at people. Prick.

Woah there, calm your tits boy.

Just like you said, its easy to get guns. If he didnt get one legally he'd have got one illegally. Not having guns wouldve prevented this or any other one. If they wanted to shoot a mall up, they could easily get the guns. So why should i not have a gun just because there are some maniacs out there. And yes I do, if someone there had a gun they coudlve stopped him

 

[KillerbYo]

Woah there, calm your tits boy.

Just like you said, its easy to get guns. If he didnt get one legally he'd have got one illegally. Not having guns wouldve prevented this or any other one. If they wanted to shoot a mall up, they could easily get the guns. So why should i not have a gun just because there are some maniacs out there. And yes I do, if someone there had a gun they coudlve stopped him

You dont get it,
If its hard to get guns Police will have it, and people wont shoot for killingspreas.

If its easy people will shoot but that wont mean people will have guns to protect, more people that shoot for killingsprees is in a majority while peopel trying to protect is in a minority.

 

[KillerbYo]

More guns mean more killings, thats a fact. Grow up.

 

[Punk Hazard]

I think you're intelligent enough to know what I mean, Rikerslade.

I know what you mean. But you're wrong. Life in jail isn't a life at all. For 23 hours a day, you're in cell that isn't cozy. It's hard, your bed is small, you have no privacy, you're constantly uncomfortable. Your prison-mates aren't exactly camp buddies, they're all probably thinking about who's gonna get beaten, raped or killed next. You lose all human rights and the food is utter shit. And if you don't eat it, you starve. You get one hour of free time in a yard, and even then, ain't shit to do but play the same old card games or lift weights. In the end, prison is a faith worse than death.

 

[Cabbage]

More guns mean more killings, thats a fact. Grow up.

Irresponsible use of guns and a cultural climate that leads to nihilism and hopelessness means more killings. Just having more guns doesn't necessarily equate to more killings per se.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Irresponsible use of guns and a cultural climate that leads to nihilism and hopelessness means more killings. Just having more guns doesn't necessarily equate to more killings per se.

It gives you more tools to carry out your beliefs, so yes it would lead to less killings if it was harder to get guns.

 

[Cabbage]

It gives you more tools to carry out your beliefs, so yes it would lead to less killings if it was harder to get guns.

Without the prerequisite of the incentive though, would the amount of guns lead to more killings?

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Without the prerequisite of the incentive though, would the amount of guns lead to more killings?

Guns are just tools, they don't kill anyone. But for a person who has the intent to end the life of someone it's an easy way to do so. It's literally just aiming and pulling a trigger.

So yes, if there are more options for people to use to kill people there will be more killings. If it was harder to have the means to kill a large amount of people, it would happen less.

 

[Aim64C]

I wonder what would have happend if he couldnt get a gun?

[video=youtube;ZMVh3RBOZeE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVh3RBOZeE[/video]

Stabbing someone is not the same as having the conviniance of shooting someone, guns shoot people, knifes can be used for different things, its not as easy to kill without a gun.

I'm curious - if I were to take you into a mall, hand you a firearm, and tell you: "Go kill people" - how many you would actually end up killing. Guns make it so easy to kill people, after all. You have to cage the things up to make sure people don't die when they are present.

You must be registered for see links

Polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946. About 200 armed deputies turned out to patrol the precincts—the normal complement of 15 deputies significantly augmented by reinforcements from other counties. A number of conflicts arose before the polls closed, the most serious of which was when a black man, Tom Gillespie, was assaulted by officers after casting his vote. Deputy C.M. Wise shot and wounded him in the back while he was trying escape from the officers. C.M. Wise was later sentenced to 1–3 years in prison, being the only person to face charges from the events of August 1–2, 1946.[7]

As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and took them to the jail. Opposition veterans responded by arming themselves and marching there. Some of them had raided the National Guard Armory, obtaining arms and ammunition.[9] Estimates of the number of veterans besieging the jail vary from several hundred[9] to as high as 2,000.[7]

When the men reached the jail, it was barricaded and manned by 55 deputies. The veterans demanded the ballot boxes but were refused. They then opened fire on the jail, initiating a battle that lasted several hours by some accounts,[7][9] considerably less by others.[10] In the end, the door of the jail was dynamited and breached. The barricaded deputies—some with injuries—surrendered, and the ballot boxes were recovered.

No one died.

A ****ing armed revolution in the middle of America. No one dies.

Perhaps it isn't as easy as it seems.

And people would have survived if he had attacked them with a knife.

There were no survivors?

That also really depends. If it were me attacking you with a knife - you will bleed out before emergency personnel even get the call that bad things are happening. Even if they were right next to you - it wouldn't make a difference. The wounds I know to inflict (and could do so in a flash against an unsuspecting average domesticated citizen) are not able to be mitigated by first responders.

Knives are also far, far quieter weapons. Guns scare crowds. Knifing someone who has wandered off to some corner is much quieter, and in the end - you could rack up a much higher body count.

Serial killers do this all the time. Very rarely do they use firearms to kill.

But ye shame if you didnt have guns cus then you cant...express your emotions...

There are 300+ million firearms in circulation in America. Some estimates place that number at twice as many. Arms proliferation is estimated around 50% (meaning roughly 180 million firearm owners).

The problem isn't firearms. The problem is that we expect ourselves to be cattle. "Lock yourself in a room." "Wait for authorities to give you instruction."

We've become a nation that waits for the problem to be solved by someone else rather than a society that mans up and handles the problem. I don't tolerate active shooters of people in my presence. Nor do I tolerate the notion that I cannot be armed. Whack out and start shooting up the restaurant I am trying to enjoy a peaceful meal at? I'll kill you, then invite the responding officer to sit down and have a dinner on me as I give him the necessary details and continue on with my meal.

Hijack my plane? I'm likely going to visit a friend in another country. That is very rude, and I'll knife both of your kidneys. On a trans-atlantic flight, you'll survive just long enough (in excruciating pain) for us to land. Then you'll expire. There is an off-chance that you'll survive and be forced to undergo Dialysis treatments for the rest of your life. 4 hours a day, 3 times a week - you sit in a chair. Most of your favorite foods will have to be enjoyed in extreme moderation or your potassium levels will spike and kill you.

Interrupt my shopping with a shooting spree because mommy didn't give you enough attention? I'll give you what attention it requires to put a round or two through you, and then go back to building my personal library at the book store.

The only time I'm going to become a 'problem' is when you start insisting that I should rely upon a bunch of agents of the state to secure me and my family while threatening me with financial or personal harm if I do not relinquish what armaments I have. Then you will find out what happens when trained and resolved individuals with firearms can accomplish.

We live in a nation where tens of millions of people can become "grunts" with all the difficulty of deciding what soda they want from the fountain. If you think any standing military has a snowball's chance in hell of fighting that, you're not very well informed about military history.

 

[Aim64C]

More guns mean more killings, thats a fact. Grow up.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I think you have your facts confused, little buddy.

 

[Cabbage]

Guns are just tools, they don't kill anyone. But for a person who has the intent to end the life of someone it's an easy way to do so. It's literally just aiming and pulling a trigger.

So yes, if there are more options for people to use to kill people there will be more killings. If it was harder to have the means to kill a large amount of people, it would happen less.

Currently violent crime vs gun ownership rates somewhat refute this:
Violent crime rates:

Spoiler

"Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011." (Planty, Michael Phd, Truman, Jennifer L. PhD, May 7th, 2012

You must be registered for see links

)

Gun ownership rates:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

(

You must be registered for see links

)

Do note though, that the BJS link also states that 70% of all homicides were done with a firearm, so perhaps there is some validity with your statement. But without a more thorough study, it's hard to determine.

 

[Aim64C]

Currently violent crime vs gun ownership rates somewhat refute this:
Violent crime rates:

Spoiler

"Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011." (Planty, Michael Phd, Truman, Jennifer L. PhD, May 7th, 2012

You must be registered for see links

)

Gun ownership rates:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

(

You must be registered for see links

)

Do note though, that the BJS link also states that 70% of all homicides were done with a firearm, so perhaps there is some validity with your statement. But without a more thorough study, it's hard to determine.

Harvard seems to ... wait - what was the point of your post?:

You must be registered for see links

Gun control tends to be, at best, counter-productive to the goal of reducing crime. "More guns" doesn't necessarily mean fewer crimes - but stricter firearm control tends to increase violent crime rates rather than reduce them in just about every society that has implemented firearm and arms control efforts (Japan was notable for its strict regulations regarding who could and could not carry a sword).

Edit: Aim's confusion.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Currently violent crime vs gun ownership rates somewhat refute this:
Violent crime rates:

Spoiler

"Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011." (Planty, Michael Phd, Truman, Jennifer L. PhD, May 7th, 2012

You must be registered for see links

)

Gun ownership rates:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

(

You must be registered for see links

)

Do note though, that the BJS link also states that 70% of all homicides were done with a firearm, so perhaps there is some validity with your statement. But without a more thorough study, it's hard to determine.

Well I believe it would decrease, gang activity in the US was at it's peak pre 93' and there were way more killings. So that makes sense.

Honestly though it's too late to try and regulate guns with how many there are without serial numbers. The only option would be for everyone to have a gun but that would just lead to more killings.

So I don't know.

 

[Cabbage]

Harvard seems to ... wait - what was the point of your post?:

You must be registered for see links

Gun control tends to be, at best, counter-productive to the goal of reducing crime. "More guns" doesn't necessarily mean fewer crimes - but stricter firearm control tends to increase violent crime rates rather than reduce them in just about every society that has implemented firearm and arms control efforts (Japan was notable for its strict regulations regarding who could and could not carry a sword).

Edit: Aim's confusion.

My apologies if the post seemed unclear. It was that although more homicides were committed with guns than without guns, homicides in general decreased as the number of guns increased in accordance to the BJS and ATF.

 

[Aim64C]

Honestly though it's too late to try and regulate guns with how many there are without serial numbers. The only option would be for everyone to have a gun but that would just lead to more killings.

So I don't know.

I do know.

Regulation of firearms to any degree is completely unnecessary (and unconstitutional).

There are far more people like you and I who want to be able to go about in society without it being ruined by thugs. Forfeiting our power and self-defense ability to a small group of people who are paid by politicians with agendas is a very, very bad model.

All of the data suggests there will be, if anything, fewer killings with an armed population.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

I do know.

Regulation of firearms to any degree is completely unnecessary (and unconstitutional).

There are far more people like you and I who want to be able to go about in society without it being ruined by thugs. Forfeiting our power and self-defense ability to a small group of people who are paid by politicians with agendas is a very, very bad model.

All of the data suggests there will be, if anything, fewer killings with an armed population.

Actually that's not unconstitutional. We have the right to bear arms but it doesn't prohibit the use of regulation over them. In fact they are even regulated now, and there's a whole process as you know to even get a gun, but that's not the problem. I believe the people that get them legally and have a license to carry them on their person are responsible enough to carry them because honestly there's a lot of steps and courses you have to pass to get to that point. By then you know how to be responsible with a gun and use it for it's intended purpose, to protect yourself and those close to you.

The problem is the illegal owners. Those are the people who bought it off the street and think they have the power to do what they want with it. Those are the people who are shooting up movie theaters and killing people in malls, the people who haven't got the guns by legal means, who haven't had the training who think this is Grand Theft Auto and you can go around killing people because you had a bad day.

The regulations set in place to get a gun weed out most of the people who aren't responsible enough to have one. So instead of putting in the effort they either steal someone else's gun or buy one off of the street.

And there is no way to regulate who has illegal guns so I don't see a way that this will end. That's what I meant by my last statement on regulation on guns. I was talking about the ones without serial numbers. The ones that people who have them don't have the right to have. If we gave everyone guns to counteract this problem that would lead to more killing. Not everyone is equipped mentally to have a gun honestly. More accidental deaths would happen and deaths over little things would increase.

 

[YowYan]

Just one question: Was he on prescripted "medicine"?

 

[Cabbage]

Just one question: Was he on prescripted "medicine"?

Nothing confirmed, and it'll continue to be difficult until the shooter is identified and then the alt media figures a lot about the guy after that.