Jump to content

Waffle House guns had been previously confiscated.


Number9

Recommended Posts

The shooter in Nashville has a long history with law enforcement.  His guns were taken in Indiana.  Then the man's daddy went and got the guns.  The shooter then brings the guns to Nashville and shoots some of us.

 

Something is very wrong about this story and how our laws protect the wrong people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Number9 said:

Something is very wrong about this story and how our laws don't protect the wrong people people from guns people.

Laws aren't meant to protect the innocent. The consequences of breaking the laws are meant to deter the would-be guilty from breaking them. The problem is the deterrence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 

The Waffle House shooter could have walked in with a Glock G43 and killed just as many people, if not more, than he killed with the AR-15. The reload process for him would've been a bit more seamless and maybe the guy who wrestled the gun away from him wouldn't have been so lucky in his efforts. Guns and gun ownership have always existed for people in this country but these public, mass shootings have only become more frequent recently, conspicuously in the most restrictive era for gun ownership and in the most gun-restrictive areas.

 

Why such a disconnect? What's wrong with people now that wasn't wrong with them before to the extent that they just don't give a fuck about the wrongness about peppering a crowd of people with bullets? And why do they target areas in which they are certain they'll meet with the least resistance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

Laws aren't meant to protect the innocent. The consequences of breaking the laws are meant to deter the would-be guilty from breaking them.

Both are true actually. Laws are meant to protect the innocent and to deter/punish potential lawbreakers. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NashvilleNinja said:

Laws aren't meant to protect the innocent. The consequences of breaking the laws are meant to deter the would-be guilty from breaking them. The problem is the deterrence isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 

The Waffle House shooter could have walked in with a Glock G43 and killed just as many people, if not more, than he killed with the AR-15. The reload process for him would've been a bit more seamless and maybe the guy who wrestled the gun away from him wouldn't have been so lucky in his efforts. Guns and gun ownership have always existed for people in this country but these public, mass shootings have only become more frequent recently, conspicuously in the most restrictive era for gun ownership and in the most gun-restrictive areas.

 

Why such a disconnect? What's wrong with people now that wasn't wrong with them before to the extent that they just don't give a fuck about the wrongness about peppering a crowd of people with bullets? And why do they target areas in which they are certain they'll meet with the least resistance?

I agree there's something else wrong.

 

There has to be a serious start, but the people who have power to change laws don't give a shit about you and me.  It's part of a pattern.  Always, the quality of your life is of little interest.  Face it, the elite are not sitting in WH.  They are not in any of the churches that have been shot up.  Their children go to private, elite schools that you don't even know the location of.  Just like they went to Sweden to have abortions when it was against the laws you have to follow.  

 

As for a deterrent, I would start looking at the more civilized countries that have the least gun violence.  See what they do.  See what we do.  Just like if you build a house with no roof and rain keeps waking you up at night.  Then you notice you are one of the few not getting any sleep.  You look around, call in consultants and they tell you what they think the neighbors are doing that you are not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

With proper background checks, closed loopholes and procedures that favored the procurement of weapons from those deemed dangerous to own them, almost all of this violence could be stopped.

 

Almost all of these guys belong to groups, have a criminal or mental background, or have demonstrated dangerous behavior in the past.

 

Several of them go around gun laws by buying weapons out of state or simply because they live in states with very lax gun laws.  They don't have to undergo training, they don't have to register, and they can buy virtually any weapon on the market easily and cheaply at a gun show or even on craigslist (never actually tried this) these days.  

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people oppose background checks.  We give up our privacy to wiz around on Facebook or even to save 2 bucks at the grocery store or get a coupon on Amazon but we draw the line on registering gun owners so police can actually track down mass murderers?  Come on.  

 

If you really want to protect the second amendment and your right to own these weapons (I sincerely do), then you have to make the law viable in today's market.  If you aren't willing to budge, you're going to lose elections and eventually the Democrats will completely overturn the law or water it down so much that your rights will be taken away from you through the sheer bureaucracy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

The father should be tried and convicted of accessory to murder on four accounts as well as accessory to assault. 

Bingo.  There needs to be more consequences for enabling idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

Trying to rid law abiding citizens of their guns just makes it easier for the crazies. 

This hypothetical hasn't been proven and speaks more to how it feels owning a gun rather than whether it actually makes one safe.

 

How often do guns end up shooting the family they are supposed to protect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, patsplat said:

There needs to be more consequences for enabling idiots.

I agree but it's unlikely that we indict the entire Republican party all at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2018 at 3:51 AM, IsntLifeFunny said:

The father should be tried and convicted of accessory to murder on four accounts as well as accessory to assault. 

Exactly. From what I've read, it sounds to me like the shooter had a long history of mental illness but still managed to get a gun permit. His father is as guilty as he is in this murder case for returning his guns after they were taken away. That is NOT responsible gun ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2018 at 6:24 AM, Soxcat said:

Good point.  The AR-15 might not have killed as many.  He could have carried multiple Glocks and just switched weapons when he needed to re-load. 

And yes, grabbing the gun and wrestling it away would be much more difficult with a pistol.

Trying to rid law abiding citizens of their guns just makes it easier for the crazies. 

 

 

 

Who exactly is trying to rid law abiding citizens of their guns by making the buying process more thorough and extensive? Normal, sane people have no reason to complain or get upset because they have to wait an extra week or two until the background check is executed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't call out the hackneyed "they're gonna take your guns" domino theory talking points.  Invoking irrational fear is a big part of ensuring status quo wins the day while not explicitly blaming anyone.  It's very effective, appealing, and finds many bravehearts to parrot the battlecry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2018 at 6:46 AM, Soxcat said:

 

There are millions of crimes that are prevented because people have a guns and those don't get reported. 

This reminds me of how no one is reporting on the Lizard People and how they are plotting to take over.  What, you want credible sources?  I just said no one is reporting on this.

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ 

Short version:  there is disagreement in regards to increased guns and its relation to crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CreepingDeath said:

This reminds me of how no one is reporting on the Lizard People and how they are plotting to take over.  What, you want credible sources?  I just said no one is reporting on this.

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ 

Short version:  there is disagreement in regards to increased guns and its relation to crime.

Posted on December 20, 2012 | Corrected on December 21, 2012  

This was six years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...