Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Justinontheinternet t1_j6bysbr wrote

Reply to comment by NabNausicaan in Holyoke mall shooting by runninginsquare_s

Seems like someone got shot and killed with a gun, according to the article at least. If the laws prevented these deaths, like we’re told they will. Would this have still happened? 🤔

Because we’re trading a constitutional amendment for the promise that gun laws will prevent tragedies such as these. We’ve given up much of our 2a rights but they haven’t held up their end of the bargain and stopped these tragedies from happening. Which means these laws don’t work or politicians are lying.(insert shocked face here)

Hell I expect someone to get on tv within the next 48 hours and talk about creating more gun laws because of this. Despite their current gun laws not working hence here we are commenting on an article about another mall shooting.

Even the Holyoke mall doesn’t allow weapons but what they are doing in reality is disarming law abiding people while allow this shooter easy and helpless targets many of which are our friends, family and neighbors.

“No Weapons Allowed The possession of any weapon, other than by law enforcement personnel, is prohibited.”

http://www.holyokemall.com/uploads/pdf/holyoke_behavior_code.pdf

−17

99BottlesOfBass t1_j6ctv05 wrote

MA resident, born and raised. I like guns, I own guns, and I'm totally in support of strict/stricter gun regulation. Gun ownership as a hobby and strict regulations for public safety are not mutually exclusive, Galaxy Brain. In fact, Well Regulated is literally among the first words of that constitutional amendment you're referencing. Funny how you lot always seem to gloss over that part 🤔

4

Justinontheinternet t1_j6f4vx9 wrote

Let’s see if there’s any real world situations where someone who wasn’t carry, happened to be carrying due to constitutional carry. Same situation happened gunman opened fire only this time the outcome was different. A law abiding gun owner put him down because he lives in a state that doesn’t infringe on our constitutional freedoms. Don’t believe me? Here’s the link! https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/18/elisjsha-dicken-identified-as-man-who-killed-greenwood-park-mall-suspsect/65375869007/

Well regulated- It means maintained. Like my balls are well regulated because I wash them everyday. Additionally curbing the 2a due to “public safety” was ruled unconstitutional vis the heller decision. So it would probably help you as a law abiding gun owner to get familiar with SCTOUS and the law of the land. MA could use this advice as well.

“ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

1

99BottlesOfBass t1_j6f9mzc wrote

Wow. While I'm thrilled that you've mastered testicular hygiene, it's a really weird thing to flex on the internet 😆 Do you often talk about your balls with strangers?

Also, as is extremely obvious with the current SCOTUS, they're not exactly an infallible body of infinite wisdom and perfect rulings. So your argument from authority can fuck right off.

I'm aware of cases wherein a lawfully carrying person has stopped a shooter. Big deal. Doesn't mean that regulations such as requiring mental health screening and continuing education/qualification tests are unreasonable. It seems a lot of these shooters have purchased their guns legally, so it seems like a mental health/competency screening program would stop a lot of the shootings without a need for what amounts to vigilante justice.

Notice how I said "a lot of" shootings, and not "all shootings." I include this bit only because I know you're already mentally typing out "BuT iF yOu MaKe GuNs iLLeGaL OnLy CriMiNaLs WiLL gEt ThEm!!!!11!1" Again, I'm aware of this problem. Shootings exist in countries that have much stricter gun laws than the US - but on a scale of one every few years rather than one every day in the US. Ergo, gun regulation prevents most but not all shootings.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of seeing our flags flying at half mast.

1

Justinontheinternet t1_j6fewdr wrote

Lmao that was genuinely funny. I use the Mr.Miyagi method wax on wax off. I appreciate you not speaking in absolutes. I’m tired of being blamed and treated like a criminal even more having my rights restricted every time some jackass decides to shoot up a mall. I’m tired of those same laws creating gun free zones in which over 77% of these shootings happen. Which create more loss of innocent life. Instead of these law abiding citizens being unable to put shooters down because of the same laws that are supposed to be “saving their lives”. I’m tired of cops being 15mins to an hour away when seconds count. I’m tired of the 911 operators who don’t know how to do their jobs. Most of all I’m tired of politicians restricting our rights in a way that directly leads to more dead innocent civilians under the guise of “the state will keep you safe with these new gun laws”.

I wrote this in another reply so this isn’t quite directed at you. But I’m curious what do you think about the quote below?

“The gun laws you justify have enabled this tragedy to happen. Other more free states this is what happens when a shooter enters the mall. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/18/elisjsha-dicken-identified-as-man-who-killed-greenwood-park-mall-suspsect/65375869007/

Different law different outcomes. Seems like you prefer the shootings in which innocents are robbed of their 2a and thus killed because of it.

Would you trade away your 1st amendment so people didn’t get hurt by words anymore? Because that’s what you’re doing with your 2nd amendment.”

0

99BottlesOfBass t1_j6ft9ic wrote

Love the false equivalency at the end there. Really, words and guns are fundamentally the exact same things, so it makes total sense. If you think about it like a Galaxy Brain.

That's a cool example of a story where someone stopped a shooter with a personal handgun because of lax gun laws. Leaving aside the fact that you completely left out any rebuttal of the idea of mental health screening (which again would mitigate the absolute number of shootings) let's take a look at another, extremely high profile case. Or two.

In Uvalde Texas (Texas is a state with extremely lax gun laws in case you weren't aware) a shooter entered a school and murdered 19 kids and two teachers. He did that despite the fact that there were armed, armored, and highly trained police there within minutes. Then, all 350+ cops (legal gun owners/carriers all) refused to enter to confront one man with a gun in the name of OfFiCeR SaFeTy. Not only that, but those same cops prevented other people, including parents of the kids being killed, from entering the school to confront the shooter with their own personal guns.

Not sure if you're old enough to remember Columbine, in April 1999 - twenty-three years before Uvalde. These two guys (who I pause to editorialize might have been caught beforehand with mental health screening) killed several students. Cops and SWAT (again, all carrying guns) surrounded the school in about fifteen minutes. Despite hearing gunshots continue for another 30 minutes after that, they also thought it was ToO DaNgEroUs aNd ScArY for them with their MP5s and body armor to confront two literal teenagers. They made no effort to enter the school for almost three hours - not even when students sheltering in a classroom taped handmade signs to the windows begging for help for their wounded, bleeding teacher (the teacher died before help arrived)

The cops sat on their tacticool gear for two hours after hearing the last of the gunshots at Columbine. Two fucking hours in their head-to-toe body armor doing fuck all. The reason they didn't hear any more gunshots during those two hours was because the shooters had killed themselves. So the punchline here is cops let people bleed to death and sit in absolutely traumatizing fear for their lives for two fucking hours because they were too scared to confront. And here I remind you that this was twenty four years ago - they haven't improved their tactics in a quarter fucking century.

So why the absolute fuck should citizens be hoping to just happen to be in the presence of someone carrying a gun who might stop the shooter, rather than counting on mental health screening? Especially because those armed citizens often shoot innocent bystanders at the scene of a shooting just because of the chaos of it all.

Don't respond to this comment unless you're going to address the idea of mental health screening. Stop talking about GuN FrEe ZoNeS being the problem because I'm definitely not advocating for that solution, and I thought I made that pretty clear in my very first response to you.

1

Justinontheinternet t1_j6hhaj4 wrote

>"Love the false equivalency at the end there. Really, words and guns are fundamentally the exact same things, so it makes total sense. If you think about it like a Galaxy Brain."

-Interesting showing your bias by comparing two constitutional amendments and you call it false equivalency lol

​

>"That's a cool example of a story where someone stopped a shooter with a personal handgun because of lax gun laws."

- Thanks that state actually follows the SCOTUS Bruen decision and allows people to carry outside of their home unlike MA.

​

>Leaving aside the fact that you completely left out any rebuttal of the idea of mental health screening (which again would mitigate the absolute number of shootings) let's take a look at another, extremely high profile case. Or two."

- Thanks for inserting your opinion here. Do you have any proof that mental health screenings will mitigate the absolute number of shootings? Or this is textbook example of false equivalence?

​

>"In Uvalde Texas (Texas is a state with extremely lax gun laws in case you weren't aware) a shooter entered a school and murdered 19 kids and two teachers. He did that despite the fact that there were armed, armored, and highly trained police there within minutes. Then, all 350+ cops (legal gun owners/carriers all) refused to enter to confront one man with a gun in the name of OfFiCeR SaFeTy. Not only that, but those same cops prevented other people, including parents of the kids being killed, from entering the school to confront the shooter with their own personal guns.
>
>Not sure if you're old enough to remember Columbine, in April 1999 - twenty-three years before Uvalde. These two guys (who I pause to editorialize might have been caught beforehand with mental health screening) killed several students. Cops and SWAT (again, all carrying guns) surrounded the school in about fifteen minutes. Despite hearing gunshots continue for another 30 minutes after that, they also thought it was ToO DaNgEroUs aNd ScArY for them with their MP5s and body armor to confront two literal teenagers. They made no effort to enter the school for almost three hours - not even when students sheltering in a classroom taped handmade signs to the windows begging for help for their wounded, bleeding teacher (the teacher died before help arrived)
>
>The cops sat on their tacticool gear for two hours after hearing the last of the gunshots at Columbine. Two fucking hours in their head-to-toe body armor doing fuck all. The reason they didn't hear any more gunshots during those two hours was because the shooters had killed themselves. So the punchline here is cops let people bleed to death and sit in absolutely traumatizing fear for their lives for two fucking hours because they were too scared to confront. And here I remind you that this was twenty four years ago - they haven't improved their tactics in a quarter fucking century."

-Cool story, please quote where I said this was the most optimal solution and please quote where I mentioned the police at all (beyond generally being a bit too late when shit happens which is understandable they can't be everywhere).

​

>"So why the absolute fuck should citizens be hoping to just happen to be in the presence of someone carrying a gun who might stop the shooter, rather than counting on mental health screening? Especially because those armed citizens often shoot innocent bystanders at the scene of a shooting just because of the chaos of it all."

-Because I just provided you an example of what happens when an armed citizen encounters a mass shooting in a mall. Because Mass isn't compliant with the Bruen decision, citizens in these situations as we've witnessed today, die. Whereas in the example I provided everyone lived. Civilian Competition shooters often out shoot top performing military operators and police officers and even swat members.

You're really set on mental health screening. I don't have to screen you mental health because of the stupid shit you're saying right here but you're still allowed to exercise your 1st amendment right. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different? They are both amendments.

Regarding your mental health boner, I must say I agree to an extent. I feel healthcare in America has inflated costs with pretty shitty patient care. I feel like more gun owners would go for mental health screenings just on their own but due to new red flag laws if you seek help your guns can be taken away from you and you have to go to a judge and ask for them back who can hold them for years. So if I were to satisfy your mental health requirement I would agree with you and say mental illness is rife in America and frankly there should be no stigma, rights removed, or fiscal block to seek these services.

​

>"Don't respond to this comment unless you're going to address the idea of mental health screening. Stop talking about GuN FrEe ZoNeS being the problem because I'm definitely not advocating for that solution, and I thought I made that pretty clear in my very first response to you."

I addressed it for you, hope that leaves you satisfied my man.

0

thedirtyfozzy84 t1_j6daaum wrote

Hey how about shutting the fuck up

3

Justinontheinternet t1_j6f41rx wrote

How about you face the truth?

1

thedirtyfozzy84 t1_j6f4hsy wrote

Touch grass

1

Justinontheinternet t1_j6f8lvw wrote

I’m touching sand rn #beachlife does anything move around in your brain and get you thinking hmm maybe what the government told me isn’t true? Which is why we’re discussing this in a post about a shooting that happened in mass, despite some of the toughest gun laws in America?

0

NabNausicaan t1_j6cvdcw wrote

Australia had a lot of shootings. Then in the 90s they made it way harder to own a gun and did a buy-back program. Gun deaths plummeted thereafter. We could do the same here, but it'd have to be enacted nationwide. The current state-by-state laws make it way too easy to buy in one state and transport to another.

Also saying this as a gun owner, guns are very dangerous and a lot different than they were in 1783. It's common sense to restrict who can own one and which types are available.

1

Justinontheinternet t1_j6f6gbm wrote

Australia is literally the size of 25 million people where as in California there are 39 million people… see how that doesn’t compare country vs country? Just last Month buddy https://youtu.be/Izaq2XQixTA Dude when on a 6hour rampage and no one could stop him Because no one had guns.

Also this happened a hostage situation at a coffee shoop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindt_Cafe_siege

I’m here to point out to you that if this gun ban worked these tragedies would not have happened in Australia. If the strict gun laws were more lac innocent people would have had a fighting chance. Ala https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/18/elisjsha-dicken-identified-as-man-who-killed-greenwood-park-mall-suspsect/65375869007/

Just think about this the next time a talking head wants you to give up your rights for the sake of “public safety”. Think lockdowns eviction moratorium you know “safety”.

2

NabNausicaan t1_j6f9fen wrote

In the first paragraph you said we can't compare the USA to Australia, then you went on to compare them in the following paragraphs.

The gun homicide rate per 100,000 residents (that's adjusted for the population difference) is over ten times greater in the United States. Looking at raw numbers, we have 330 million people and 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide. Australia has 26 million people, and had 229 gun deaths in 2019. Their gun deaths have continued to drop ever since the laws changed.

2

Justinontheinternet t1_j6fcqzt wrote

You misunderstand 25 million is a much smaller number than 350 million. The sample size is not the same Which is why the population can’t be compared.

If your sentiment about Australia were true , I wouldn’t have any examples to cite, I just gave you multiple examples. Which immediately disproves your theory that a nationwide gun ban would eliminate gun violence as again. Again, I just provided examples not sure what more is needed. Oh yeah the gun laws you justify have enabled this tragedy to happen. Other more free states this is what happens when a shooter enters the mall. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/18/elisjsha-dicken-identified-as-man-who-killed-greenwood-park-mall-suspsect/65375869007/

Different law different outcomes. Seems like you prefer the shootings in which innocents are robbed of their 2a and thus killed because of it.

Would you trade away your 1st amendment so people didn’t get hurt by words anymore? Because that’s what you’re doing with your 2nd amendment. You’re likely a gun owner for the need for protection. If the government was doing a good job protecting you already (ala the laws you’re trying to justify) you wouldn’t need a gun nor would we be having this conversation as this shooting would not have happened according to your logic.

Also you have a gun in your house how is that everyone in your house isn’t dead? Especially if guns are so dangerous that you actively choose to own them?

You gotta show me these olympic level mental gymnastics I’m impressed.

1

warlocc_ t1_j6fo3uv wrote

>The current state-by-state laws make it way too easy to buy in one state and transport to another.

To be fair, that's generally already illegal, and multiple times over depending on who's doing it.

I'm not sure if standardization of firearms laws where some states get stricter and some looser, would actually improve things or not.

Automobile laws are largely similar across the board and they're still regularly violated, too.

1