Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking News... Massive shooting : FedX, Shooter and Ga. Surprised with those laws? (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vetwife, RiveroftheWest

    Thanks for the info.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 10:11:11 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Eyewitness begs to differ... (14+ / 0-)
      9:55 a.m.: FedEx employee Liza Aiken saw the shooter, a 19-year-old man she said was a loader, just before she heard gunfire. Aiken was doing address corrections on some packages when she said she “heard a clink.
      “I looked to my left. I saw him standing there and the knife was on the ground. He dropped his knife. He had an assault rifle. He had bullets strapped to his chest like Rambo. I mean he looked like he was heading into war. As soon as I saw him, I ran the other way. I ran and made sure that people upstairs were gone. He was in all black. I think he had a camo vest. He had an assault rifle and bullets strapped to his chest.”
      Aiken said she previously reported the shooting suspect to her superiors. She said he pointed a work laser in her eye..
      http://www.ajc.com/...

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 10:26:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (15+ / 0-)

        Frank wants to bicker about minor details to derail talking about the obvious problems with the gun religion.  Arm the maroons, we'll all be safer!

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 10:28:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  CNN has the police saying shotgun (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, Vetwife, rubyr

        First, condolences to the victims.  But they weren't victims of an assault rifle.

        "That individual is deceased here at the scene," Cobb County Police Department Sgt. Dana Pierce told reporters. Police were sweeping the area with search dogs to ensure no secondary devices had been planted.

        Pierce would not release the name of the employee, whose body was found near a shotgun. "That was the only weapon that he had at that time," Pierce said.

        The police don't have an assault rifle, only a shotgun.

        As for the bullets strapped to his chest, an AR-15 doesn't take a string of bullets like a 50cal from a Vietnam War movie.  Assault riffles take bullets in clips.

        What the witness most likely saw was something like this, a shotgun shell belt:
        http://www.walmart.com/...

        •  The FedEx facility screens all incoming employees (4+ / 0-)

          with a metal detector as well.  No employee firearms are allowed in the facility.

        •  I thought there was no such thing as an (4+ / 0-)

          "assault rifle"?

          I guess they only exist when you wish to absolve them?

          Make up your mind(s)...

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:23:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just using the common language (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            You are correct of course.  An AR-15 with a wooden stock and 5 round clip is a standard deer hunting rifle.  But you called it an assault rifle so I followed suit.  Make up your mind then.

            •  I quoted the eyewitness... (2+ / 0-)

              and Frank... and you...

              I didn't call it anything...

              #FlailFail...

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 12:22:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And so did I (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                The witness said assault rifle, which is what you quoted, and I quoted in suit.  Why'd you get all worked up over that?

                •  That's not what you said... (3+ / 0-)
                  Just using the common language
                  is what you said... that's not a "quote"...

                  Anyway, I initially got "worked up" about it because Frank came swinging in on a chandelier to make sure the poor, maligned "assault rifle" didn't get unfairly accused... seemed to be his primary "concern"... see, some of us are kinda sick and tired of his bullshit...

                  Not sure why you got so worked up about it that you felt the need to parrot the NRA talking point about AR-15's, especially as a self-professed "non-gun owner"...

                  An AR-15 with a wooden stock and 5 round clip is a standard deer hunting rifle.
                  A "standard deer hunting rifle" cosmetically designed to look and feel like a standard human being hunting rifle... tell me, which of the modifications added to an AR-15 that AREN'T found on a "standard deer hunting rifle" enhance its "deer hunting" capabilities?

                  Baby, where I come from...

                  by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 01:48:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just the clip size. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    i saw an old tree today

                    Whether its painted black or not has no bearing. The .223 Remington is a standard deer hunting round. Limit the AR-15 to a five round clip and its a deer rifle no matter what else you do.

                    Limit the police and SWAT to 5 rounds, and you can limit everyone to 5 rounds.

                    •  I'm going to agree with you Norm (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Norm in Chicago

                      Maybe I'm just tired, but I'd rather your way than more death, rendered flesh and division, on everyone's part

                    •  This contradicts your own argument... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      i saw an old tree today
                      Limit the police and SWAT to 5 rounds, and you can limit everyone to 5 rounds.
                      But I thought criminals would always "find away around" gun laws?

                      So you're in favour of criminals being better armed than the police? That worked out well in North Hollywood, didn't it?

                      What are the police supposed to do when scofflaws show up with 30 round clips?

                      You haven't thought this out very well, have you?

                      Baby, where I come from...

                      by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 12:12:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You want police to have rocket launchers? (0+ / 0-)

                        Yes, the criminals may very well find a way to get around gun laws.  But just because a criminal gets a full auto AK-47 doesn't mean we start giving out machine guns to every cop.

                        So you support a massive arms race?  If criminals have 30 round clips, then the police get 60 round clips?  And when the criminals have 100 round clips, do the police get grenades and rocket launchers?
                        If the criminals get RPGs, do the police get nukes?  Where does your arms race end?

                        What are the police supposed to do when scofflaws show up with 30 round clips?
                        They're supposed to act like police.  Pull back, call for backup, setup a perimeter, and surround them.  The police have radios and superior numbers.  Do they also have to be armed like Rambo.

                        One of the reasons I always call for equality between police and civilians is - Equality - and not having an overly militarized police force.

                        But the other reason is the sheer joy of seeing the anti-gun crowd start demanding 30 round clips and full auto machine guns for the police to "keep us safe".  Give me a break.

                        I'm more likely to be shot by a cop than a criminal with a machine gun.  Do you want to limit guns or not?

                      •  More on the North Hollywood shootout (0+ / 0-)

                        Since you brought it up.  From wiki....

                        Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their standard issue 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s, a Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator, and a HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating vehicles and police Kevlar vests. The bank robbers wore body armor which successfully deflected bullets and shotgun shells fired by the responding patrolmen. SWAT eventually arrived bearing sufficient firepower, and they commandeered an armored truck to evacuate the wounded. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.

                        The officers' weaponry could not penetrate aramid body armor worn by Phillips and Mătăsăreanu, which covered most of their bodies and provided more bullet resistance than standard-issue police Kevlar vests. The robbers' heads were the only vital organs that were unprotected, but most of the LAPD officers' service pistols had insufficient range and relatively poor accuracy.

                        First, since the criminals had automatic weapons, are you going to go on record as saying that the police must carry automatic weapons?  And at all times, even in parks and near schools?  No telling where those sneaky criminals will show up...

                        Second, looks like the only thing that stopped bad guys with big guns was good guys with big guns.  So you agree with the NRA?

                        Third, the cops had to get AR-15s from a gun shop, so good thing there was no assault weapons ban in '97, yes?

                        Fourth, after getting the criminals surrounded and trapped, what the cops needed to take down the criminals wasn't 30 round clips, it was just range and accuracy, same as for deer hunting.  They didn't need 30 round clips in the AR-15, just the AR-15.  You don't get a headshot by spraying bullets.

                        And finally, despite being better armed and armored than the police, at the end of the shootout both suspects were dead, and no police were dead.  So yes it did work out well, without giving the police automatic weapons.

                        •  Hey, if they hadn't been able to obtain the semi (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          i saw an old tree today

                          automatic versions of those weapons, they wouldn't have been able to ILLEGALLY convert them to fully automatic, would they? Yes, "good thing there was no assault weapons ban in 1997" isn't it? Just think what might have happened if Phillips and Mătăsăreanu had been stuck using standard issue police service weapons... great call...

                          BTW, one of the assailants killed himself (as is often the case in these types of assaults)... I presume you're banking on that happening most of the time? Take away assault weapons from the cops and just wait for the bad guy to off himself? Brilliant!

                          Again, you really haven't thought this out very well, have you?

                          See, at the time the police didn't even have SEMI AUTOMATIC assault weapons... the fact that they had to appropriate them from a gun shoppe because they were outgunned appears to be a positive thing in your "mind"...

                          Face it... you're in favour of trusting criminals over law enforcement... or trusting them equally... kind of hard to decipher your "logic"... at the very least you're advocating placing criminals on equal footing with law enforcement...

                          Again, you really haven't thought this out very well... you ARE really giving FrankRose a run for his money with this shit though... so you've got that goin' for you...

                          Baby, where I come from...

                          by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 01:38:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  SWAT had AR-15s (0+ / 0-)

                            It was the beat cops first on the scene that only had handguns and shotguns.  So the AR-15 was police issue.  If those guns are being made for police, criminals will always be able to get ahold of them through illegal channels.

                            I'll ask again, since you dodged the question:  Do you want every cop carrying a semi-auto AR-15 all the time, since criminals will always be able to get them?  Do you want the police to rely on superior numbers, radio, backup, training and marksmanship?  Or do you want them firing dozens of rounds in seconds at unarmed people in the wrong truck, like the LAPD does?

                            Now if the police truly didn't have semi-auto weapons at all, including SWAT, then it'd be okay to ban them for civilians, since they wouldn't be manufactured anymore at all.

                            Yes I trust criminals.  I trust them to be dumb, to think they can outsmart the police, to go off half cocked and to get themselves killed.  And yes, most mass shooters do kill themselves, like the guy at Fed Ex yesterday, and all the others.  In most cases the best strategy, if there are no hostages, is to sit and wait for them to off themselves.  Beats charging into a hail of bullets.

                            But yes I have thought this through.  I'm not the anti-gun guy calling for the police to be armed like Rambo to "keep us safe".  The LAPD have killed more people being heavily armed, waiting for the next North Hollywood shootout, than the criminals would ever kill.  Can you explain your "logic"?

                            You still haven't justified why police need 30 round clips.  I'm giving you a blanket nationwide ban, but you're so scared of criminals you won't take it.

                          •  Again, you contradict your own "logic"... (0+ / 0-)
                            If those guns are being made for police, criminals will always be able to get ahold of them through illegal channels.
                            Unless you're talking about banning the manufacture of those weapons WORLDWIDE, the criminals will still be able to get ahold of them through "illegal channels"...

                            You would disarm the police and leave them at the mercy of the global illegal arms trade...

                            So tell me... how do you propose we ban the manufacture of AK47's WORLDWIDE?

                            Checkmate... this idea is utterly moronic on every level...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:16:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're the one who wants the arms race (0+ / 0-)

                            Have to start somewhere if you want to limit guns.  Now you've moved the line to say that as long as there is an AK-47 being made anywhere on Earth, that the police have to have automatic weapons to be equal to the criminals.  But criminals disobey all bans.  Criminals are making homemade bombs, so cops get grenades right?

                            You don't want to even start limiting guns?  If manufacture of a weapon was banned in the US, that would be less guns overall, and aren't less guns good?  Wouldn't it be that much harder for criminals to get them?

                            But every time you say the police need guns for self defense, I'm going to apply that exact same logic to civilians, as police can't be everywhere.

                            You would disarm civilians and leave them at the mercy of the global illegal arms trade...

                          •  And there's something you didn't think through (0+ / 0-)

                            Why do you trust the criminals over civilians?  Why do you want criminals to be better armed?
                            For any given gun ban, the criminals will always be better armed than the civilians, because civilians will obey the bans and criminals won't.

                            Since not even equality between criminal and police is good enough for you, how can you ask civilians to be less armed than criminals?  By your logic, any gun a criminal can get his hands on, a civilian can own to keep himself as safe as the police. Police don't always show up on time.

                            By asking civilians to be disarmed when criminals aren't, you're the one trusting armed criminals not to kill disarmed civilians.
                            I trust criminals to be stupid, you trust them to be merciful and companionate.

                            Admit it, equality is the best deal you're going to get.

                          •  I trust trained police officers over criminals... (0+ / 0-)

                            AND over untrained yahoos armed to the teeth with hero complexes and little to no training...

                            You seem to have a major problem with the police... did a cop steal your girlfriend or something?

                            Take the tragic situation here in LA a few weeks ago where sheriffs deputies shot John Winkler... do you honestly think an untrained layman with NO experience in such matters would have handled that situation better? Based on what?

                            I love the notion of just waiting out armed assailants until they shoot themselves, regardless of how many people they've already shot as long as they don't have hostages... hey, maybe just wait them out until they starve if they're not suicidal... that'll work WAY better than trained, armed police officers...

                            Maybe we should just have bobbies over here too? Think how quaint that would be...

                            This is performance art, right Norm? Come on, where's your hat, I wanna toss a dollar in it...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:24:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How does a 30 round clip = training? (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't justify your own argument, so you spiral out of control with nonsense.  I never said don't train the police, you made that up from nowhere.  And how does banning 30 round clips for police eliminate training?   It's the opposite actually.  With a 5 round clip, an officer has to be trained, patient and an excellent marksman.  With a 30 round clip he can just spray out a hail of bullets like any untrained yahoo.  So explain why a highly trained officer needs a 30 round clip.

                            Yes I do have a major problem with police.  They shoot unarmed people in the back and don't go to jail for it.  I thought you were against gun violence?  I don't want either untrained yahoos or police armed to the teeth.  I'm happy to ban large clips for both, because they're not necessary for self defense.  I would even allow a designation of semi-auto as military only, so long as we recognize that police are NOT military.  Are you willing to do that?

                            But if you're not, then any gun that you give to the police for self defense against criminals you must also give to civilians.  Go ahead and require training like IL does, but police and civilians are on equal footing with regard to Constitutional rights.  Show me any point in the past where police were allowed to own weapons banned for civilians.

                            And you watch too many movies, if you think going in guns blazing is always the best strategy.  For someone anti gun, you're far to willing to let the police use them.

                          •  Jesus... (0+ / 0-)
                            How does a 30 round clip = training?
                            Who said it does? I SAID I prefer those who possess 30 round clips BE trained... police officers and sheriffs deputies must be TRAINED before they're allowed out in public with such weapons and ammo... the general public as it stands right now? Not one iota of training is required...

                            You're "happy to ban large clips for both" but the police should go first, then we'll talk about banning them at large...

                            Neither smart nor practical...

                            Yes, cops fuck up with deadly consequences and are often not held accountable and that needs to change... but the answer is NOT to give private citizens equal firepower so they can shoot back... sorry...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 01, 2014 at 10:05:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's not what you said (0+ / 0-)
                            that'll work WAY better than trained, armed police officers...
                            Getting rid of 30 round clips doesn't result in untrained, disarmed police.  It doesn't mean going down to bobby sticks.  It doesn't mean untrained laymen with NO EXPERIECE are handling crisis situations.

                            And you still haven't justified 30 round clips except for "criminals have them", so self-defense.  And still haven't explained why that logic doesn't apply to civilians.

                            But you're wrong, in IL there is mandatory training for anyone getting a concealed carry permit.  

                          •  Oh, I see... "30 clips because police have them?" (0+ / 0-)

                            THAT'S your "rationale"?

                            Brilliant...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:03:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Same as your rationale (0+ / 0-)

                            You say that the Police can have all the weapons that criminals have, and I say civilians can have all the weapons that police get.

                            If you would just stop the arms race with criminals, and drop the nonsense that cops get to go full auto whenever the criminals do, then you could work to dial back both the police and civilian level of arms, which is where almost all the guns are in this country.

                            To you, it's completely logical for the LAPD to carry AR-15s and 30 round clips each and every day, because one day in 1997 a couple criminals got a hold of machine guns.  To me, it's George W. Bush style War on Terror, pant pissing "keep us safe" nonsense.

                            Do you have anything besides one day 17 years ago to justify police having 30 round clips?  Just admit the police don't need them, and I'll agree with a complete and total ban.  It's that simple, and you won't do it.

                          •  I know... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today
                            You say that the Police can have all the weapons that criminals have, and I say civilians can have all the weapons that police get.
                            That's laughably preposterous because intentionally or not, you're placing criminals on equal footing with law enforcement... that you'd also arm private citizens into the midst of it is not very well thought out... it's the same "rationale" as the NRA's "more guns" solution to everything...

                            Look, I get that you're trying to float this libertarian pschobabble wherein the police are potentially intruders on our "libertuhs" and therefore must be on equal footing with the rest of us but there's literally no real world practicality to your hallucination...

                            So tell me, how exactly would that work? All private citizens would turn over their military styled semi-automatic weapons and clips over 5 rounds before or after the police do? Would everybody just meet up and toss them on a big pile? THEN congress would vote on the legislation? If that's not a fever dream, I don't know what is...

                            Speaking of "big piles", how about a couple of weeks ago when armed domestic terrorists faced off with federal officers in Nevada and the feds were forced to stand down to avoid a bloodbath? Is that "recent" enough for you? THIS is what you envision as desirable situation?

                            Sorry, I'm done with this conversation...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 01, 2014 at 12:40:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You just wrote off any possibility of banning guns (0+ / 0-)

                            First, let's be perfectly clear.  I'm the one saying police don't need more guns, and you disagree with me.  So it's you agreeing with the NRA that "more guns" are the solution for the police to deal with criminals.

                            Criminals are NEVER on equal footing with law enforcement.  Those two jokers in North Hollywood are dead because despite all their arms, it was two lone nuts against an army of police with radio, backup, helicopters.  There was no escape, no shooting their way out of that.
                            You're so stuck on having the cops out Rambo the criminals, but that's not the best way to win those fights.

                            You're trying to sell me on an over militarized police state where the cops have the firepower to blow away any threat they face, regardless of how many unarmed innocents they also blow away.

                            But then you go on to discount any possibility of ever banning any gun, any clip in this country, by saying people will never give up their guns.  Well if that's true, then what are you arguing for?  A gun ban enforced solely by threat of massive police violence?

                            No, instead, Congress first passes the ban.  Police and law abiding citizens all disarm.  After the grace period, anyone with a 30 round clip is a criminal and subject to massive jail time.  Real criminals aren't going to give up their guns for any ban, so they don't count.  Your goal is to first get to less guns overall, not out Rambo the criminals.

                            Finally, I'll address this:

                            Speaking of "big piles", how about a couple of weeks ago when armed domestic terrorists faced off with federal officers in Nevada and the feds were forced to stand down to avoid a bloodbath?
                            The feds have all the arms they could want, right?  They have the numbers and backup to take out the terrorists, so why didn't they?  Was it lack of arms that held the feds back?  Are you honestly saying that if the feds had only had 5 round clips, that the situation would have been fundamentally different?

                            We've discussed military, and armed domestic terrorists are a military situation.  If after 30 round clips are banned there's a crazy militia refusing to disarm and threatening police with a bloodbath, call in the National Guard.  That's what they're there for, to defend a free state from crazy threats.

                            But it's not libertarian psychobabble that police and citizens are equal.  It's basic Constitutional rights.  The police have never, NEVER, had special 2nd Amendment rights over civilians.  NEVER.

                          •  I was hoping for fewer weapons for everyone (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ThatSinger

                            ~anyway~ thanks

                          •  I'd like to see fewer weapons for everyone too... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            I just think starting by disarming the police as a precondition is idiotic… And crazy…

                            Norm's approaching "FrankRose" territory…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 01, 2014 at 02:03:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You demand that the police unilaterally disarm... (0+ / 0-)

                            as a precondition for banning sales of semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammo clips to the general public... can you not see how batshit that sounds?

                            What's next, should they unilaterally turn in their police cruisers as a precondition for passing laws against fleeing to elude?

                            Jesus...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 06:34:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, not unilaterally disarm (0+ / 0-)

                            Just that the police obey the same bans as everyone else.  If large capacity clips are bad, they're bad for everyone.  But if the police need 30 round clips to keep them safe against criminals, then so do civilians.  Can't have it both ways.

                            Every weapon that civilians can own for self defense, the police can also have.  As we've already covered, and as you've refused to address, the police don't need semi-autos and 30 round clips, just range and accuracy.  They can still have sniper rifles and long range bolt action rifles, if that's what you want to limit civilians to.

                            Even in North Hollywood, what they really needed was a clean headshot from a bolt action rifle.

                          •  Bullshit... (0+ / 0-)
                            Even in North Hollywood, what they really needed was a clean headshot from a bolt action rifle.
                            Your armchair Monday morning quarterbacking aside, they needed to NOT have 2 armed and armoured assailants running amok... you honestly don't believe the LAPD had or attempted to have snipers in place or that the thought didn't cross their mind? How do you know they ever had a "clean headshot" on either of them?

                            And yes, you're demanding that the police unilaterally disarm and divest themselves of the types of weapons and ammo the N.Hollywood marauders were able to easily obtain illegally before even DISCUSSING banning them for everyone? What's next? The military should also give up that weaponry in case of martial law? I mean by your "logic", they shouldn't have superior firepower over civilians either...

                            Sorry, that makes no sense...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu May 01, 2014 at 09:59:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I said at the same time (0+ / 0-)
                            you're demanding that the police unilaterally disarm and divest themselves of the types of weapons and ammo the N.Hollywood marauders were able to easily obtain illegally before even DISCUSSING banning them for everyone?
                            Nope, never said that, never said before.  Equality means at the same time.  I never said the cops would have to disarm before even DISCUSSING the bans.  Nonsense.  Cops can keep their guns during discussions.  And if 30 round clips are banned, on the day the ban goes into effect, that's the day the cops have to turn in their big clips.

                            This conversation is getting boring.  It's obvious that you have no intention of ever demilitarizing the police.  You've said that the North Hollywood shooters were illegally armed, and want the police to be able to match that firepower.  So you aren't even interested in limiting police to semi-auto, let alone those limited to civilians.  I don't know why you're such a fan of big police shootouts and want more of them.  Makes no sense to me.

                            Civilians and military are very different, you should understand that.  Police are NOT military, limits that apply to civilian police don't apply to military.

        •  What's the difference.. Dead and wounded (8+ / 0-)

          whether he shot with a shotgun or a pistol or assault rifle.
          Well it is too much gun violence and not enough regulation !!!!!!

          Just how much Koch do Right Wingers want in their life? . United Veterans of America

          by Vetwife on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:25:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That was not to you Boris.. fell under wrong post (2+ / 0-)

            Just how much Koch do Right Wingers want in their life? . United Veterans of America

            by Vetwife on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:25:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The difference is that regulation is specific (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            worldlotus, FrankRose, blackhand

            People want assault rifle bans.  Chicago wanted a handgun ban.  Those are specific regulations for specific weapons.  But banning one type of gun makes little difference and detracts from the overall effort to reduce the root causes of violence.  So yes it does make a difference when the weapon used is a hunting shotgun that isn't covered by those bans or regulations.

            If an assault rifle had been used, there'd be a hundred calls to renue the AWB.  But because it's a shotgun, and shotguns will never ever be banned, people are going to have to focus on the true root causes of violence and not a specific weapon.

            It shouldn't matter what weapon was used, but the push for regulation makes it matter.

            •  A shotgun was used and there ARE calls for gun (4+ / 0-)

              regulations... of all kinds... nobody is saying "oh, it was a shotgun? They're great, we shouldn't regulate shotguns"...

              ALL guns should be regulated... military-styled weapons should be banned... none of us are saying otherwise...

              See, this is bullshit:

              people are going to have to focus on the true root causes of violence and not a specific weapon.
              This presupposes that guns should not be a part of the conversation... that unless or until we solve the "root causes" of ALL violence, there's no reason to address the implements of GUN violence...

              For a non-gun owner, you sure seem awfully concerned with defending guns...

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 12:31:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  RKBA's Founder says automatic shotguns shld be (4+ / 0-)

                legal to carry in public. Openly or concealed. Fully-automatic *shotguns*. Current models are capable of shooting roughly 30 shotgun shells in just 6 seconds using a detachable drum magazine, or single-shot.

              •  No, military weapons should be banned (0+ / 0-)

                Not military "styled". Either a weapon is military, and is limited to regular army and the national guard, or it's non military, and is available to civilians and police. Police are not military, and that includes SWAT. Every weapon has to fall on one side or the other.

                So that takes care of regulating guns, nice and simple. Then there's regulating gun owners, which is covered by due process. Commit a felony, lose gun rights.  Again, simple.

                Beyond that, you have to deal with the root causes of violence, and treat gun violence the same as all other violence.

                •  'root causes' is a red herring, in this diary (2+ / 0-)

                  The rhetorical strategy is to get someone to ask what what the alleged root causes are, in order to shift the conversation away from guns, and then to follow up with a gripping personal example. With the conversation shifted, the 'root cause' meme is then quietly dropped, until another gun diary comes along, where it is used again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

                  As ThatSinger says:

                  This presupposes that guns should not be a part of the conversation... that unless or until we solve the "root causes" of ALL violence, there's no reason to address the implements of GUN violence...
                  But of course we can do both.

                  I don't think you'll find opposition here to discussion of other policies which reduce violence of all kinds. (There are tradeoffs and debates about many of these, as well, e.g. exposure to violence in movies, TV, video-games, lyrics, etc., vs. 1st Amendment freedoms. Other possible causes are broader, such as unemployment, weak family bonds, etc.) But this breaking news diary is about a 19-yo gunman who shot six people at work with a shotgun, then shot himself.

                  I look forward to a steady stream of diaries from you, on topics like ways to improve our mental health care system, ways to reduce domestic violence, combat drug abuse and/or the war on drugs, and other root causes that you have identified in the tragic murder or your great-aunt by a crazed neighbor wielding a machete.

                  Unlike Gerry Ford, we can walk and chew gum.

            •  Depends on the shotgun. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight, Norm in Chicago

              A street sweeper though a shot gun would be equal to an assault weapon. Designed for combat not hunting or target shooting.

              Where say a Mossburg Double Barrel would be more of a hunting gun.

              The question more on a weapon is what was it made for rather than what you call it.

              An AR15 or a Street Sweeper was designed as an offensive weapon to use on people.

              A double barrel shotgun or a Marlin 336 are hunting guns.

      •  Eyewitnesses are somewhat unreliable. As in this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, Vetwife

        case.  Look further down in the comments section for a quote from the police spokesperson on the scene.

      •  ABC, CNN & Reuter's all say 'shotgun'. (0+ / 0-)

        But why worry about such minor things as 'facts' when you have petty meta to endlessly talk about.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:00:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Duly noted... (4+ / 0-)

        it was apparently a shotgun used in the assault, not an assault rifle...

        My (and the eyewitness') mistake...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 11:33:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah....anyone that cared to click the link (0+ / 0-)

          I provided (or make a simple google search) already knew that.

          But why worry about simple fact when you have meta to carry on about?

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Apr 30, 2014 at 08:01:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not really good. See above. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vetwife, i saw an old tree today

      In Georgia, acting the fool with a gun is not only legal, it is encouraged by the governor and the state legislature.

      by Mayfly on Tue Apr 29, 2014 at 01:42:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site