yep, with the passion we all feel...........that phrase gives me a chuckle.

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

I would welcome it.

And thank you for the rational response.

It's telling that when factual information is provided the left always resorts to some type of deflection whether it be one of their favorite "isms", case in point here, or another form of "but, but, but....."

It's one of the many reasons why in November we will be defending "voter suppression, gerrymandering, stolen elections" claims for two years. They always do it when they lose. And they are going to lose "bigly" this Fall.

caryking said:

---

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

---

LOL...you guys continue with your "look over here" tactics. We ALL know the crime stats BBW wants us to focus on are bad. Inner city crime is bad. But as I've said over and over -- you don't care, I don't care, the media doesn't care, and the politiicans don't care. Cruel...absolutely. But the vast majority of it is drug/gang/crime fueled and so people just don't care. Hokie created a whole thread about it, and your stats are welcome there, and maybe you guys can come up with some solutions to stop those drive-bys and retribution shootings.

The FBI created a new term around "active shooter situations" - those are the ones people care about because it happens where we (or our family) live and work. It is in the schools, the places of work, the shopping centers, etc. This thread has been about the Texas shooting and the availabilty of the AR type weapons so often used in the mass shootings. BBW wants to talk about the inner city crime and such -- which is typically hand guns. No one here has been talking about hand guns....except BBW.

Read the FBI document I posted yesterday about active shooter (I assume it will have another new case this morning after teh events in Tulsa last night). I don't get why this difference in what this thread is about, and what BBW wants to focus on (and we know why) is so difficult to comprehend.

Who gives a **** if the fbi redefined active shooter? The fbi determined parents at PTA meetings were domestic terrorists.

Mass shootings dont decrease by banning the scary AR15.

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

---

LOL...you guys continue with your "look over here" tactics. We ALL know the crime stats BBW wants us to focus on are bad. Inner city crime is bad. But as I've said over and over -- you don't care, I don't care, the media doesn't care, and the politiicans don't care. Cruel...absolutely. But the vast majority of it is drug/gang/crime fueled and so people just don't care. Hokie created a whole thread about it, and your stats are welcome there, and maybe you guys can come up with some solutions to stop those drive-bys and retribution shootings.

The FBI created a new term around "active shooter situations" - those are the ones people care about because it happens where we (or our family) live and work. It is in the schools, the places of work, the shopping centers, etc. This thread has been about the Texas shooting and the availabilty of the AR type weapons so often used in the mass shootings. BBW wants to talk about the inner city crime and such -- which is typically hand guns. No one here has been talking about hand guns....except BBW.

Read the FBI document I posted yesterday about active shooter (I assume it will have another new case this morning after teh events in Tulsa last night). I don't get why this difference in what this thread is about, and what BBW wants to focus on (and we know why) is so difficult to comprehend.

---

Chem, I'm not, in anyway at all, deflecting the issues that happen at schools. In fact, my wife is a Kindergarten teacher, so, I care about her safety as well as the kids in her school.

The point is that we get so infatuated with these horrific situations and not on all horrific situations. No matter how bad any one of these events are, they all are bad.

BTW, I haven't watched and/or read any news this morning, so I didn't know about the Oklahoma event. In all likelihood, this is going to be another bad statistic...

FoxNews - Article down the page
CNN - Top story
MSNBC - Side page story (second in line)
ABCNews - Middle page story
CBSNews - Top Story
NBCNews - One of the top stories

I wish I would have done the same for the Texas event.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Let's say I agree with health care being a basic right…. If someone were to ask me: how does a person obtain that basic right? How should I answer them?

---

Health care isn't and never will be a right. It's a service. What gives you the right to demand someone else's time as a right?

---

Hokie, I agree with you…. The question is still open. People do believe it's a basic right, so, how does a person obtain that basic right?

I'm always wanting to hear and understand people when they say this stuff. Rights have to come from somewhere, right?

---

correct but you can't make someone else's time your right. I never really understand that argument.

There are many issues with Health Care in the US and they are all because of Govt interference in supply and demand in the market because of expense.

I would rather some Health Care be expensive because it is introducing new treatments and equipment and is on the forefront of health care on this planet. We should never suppress innovation in health care.

Innovation unfortunately costs money and that money needs to be recouped.

At the same time, regulation, such as certificate of need laws are created to help "control the cost of health care" but all it does is depress the supply and does nothing with the demand.

So what you really need are a couple of things in my mind:

1. More competition in the private insurance market to drive down the cost, regulation of what needs to be included in an insurance plan needs to be reduced. There shouldn't be just one offering of a plan that covers everything but only the deductibles are your option. You should be able to create you plan based on your sex and what life stage you are in.

2. Less regulation on the supply of health care facilities so that demand can be met

3. We as a society have to decide if we are going to use our collected tax money to fund Medicaid for those who still can't afford private insurance.

There is never going to be equity of care and equity of outcome in health care because each persons diagnosis' and needs are different. To treat everyone the same is in the name is equity is dumb

Note to BBW - hey look! A plan presented by me, something you claim I never do!

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

---

LOL...you guys continue with your "look over here" tactics. We ALL know the crime stats BBW wants us to focus on are bad. Inner city crime is bad. But as I've said over and over -- you don't care, I don't care, the media doesn't care, and the politiicans don't care. Cruel...absolutely. But the vast majority of it is drug/gang/crime fueled and so people just don't care. Hokie created a whole thread about it, and your stats are welcome there, and maybe you guys can come up with some solutions to stop those drive-bys and retribution shootings.

The FBI created a new term around "active shooter situations" - those are the ones people care about because it happens where we (or our family) live and work. It is in the schools, the places of work, the shopping centers, etc. This thread has been about the Texas shooting and the availabilty of the AR type weapons so often used in the mass shootings. BBW wants to talk about the inner city crime and such -- which is typically hand guns. No one here has been talking about hand guns....except BBW.

Read the FBI document I posted yesterday about active shooter (I assume it will have another new case this morning after teh events in Tulsa last night). I don't get why this difference in what this thread is about, and what BBW wants to focus on (and we know why) is so difficult to comprehe

---

Chem, I'm not, in anyway at all, deflecting the issues that happen at schools. In fact, my wife is a sio teacher, so, I care about her safety as well as the kids in her school.

The point is that we get so infatuated with these horrific situations and not on all horrific situations. No matter how bad any one of these events are, they all are bad.

BTW, I haven't watched and/or read any news this morning, so I didn't know about the Oklahoma event. In all likelihood, this is going to be another bad statistic...

FoxNews - Article down the page
CNN - Top story
MSNBC - Side page story (second in line)
ABCNews - Middle page story
CBSNews - Top Story
NBCNews - One of the top stories

I wish I would have done the same for the Texas event.

---

But they are two completely different use cases -- one are almost always handguns and a completley different MO. We're not going to stop those.

The other are the ones really up for national debate, and again, this isn't really even difficult to see.
Those sites you reference, none of them are going talk about the inner cities. Nor will this board, unless its the occasional reference, like in BBW's case, to distract.
No one is talking about stopping handguns (restate that...no one reasonable). The national debate is overwhelmingly about these active shooter issues. And seems any discussion of taking action (be it access to guns or mental health) is also focused on that

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

---

LOL...you guys continue with your "look over here" tactics. We ALL know the crime stats BBW wants us to focus on are bad. Inner city crime is bad. But as I've said over and over -- you don't care, I don't care, the media doesn't care, and the politiicans don't care. Cruel...absolutely. But the vast majority of it is drug/gang/crime fueled and so people just don't care. Hokie created a whole thread about it, and your stats are welcome there, and maybe you guys can come up with some solutions to stop those drive-bys and retribution shootings.

The FBI created a new term around "active shooter situations" - those are the ones people care about because it happens where we (or our family) live and work. It is in the schools, the places of work, the shopping centers, etc. This thread has been about the Texas shooting and the availabilty of the AR type weapons so often used in the mass shootings. BBW wants to talk about the inner city crime and such -- which is typically hand guns. No one here has been talking about hand guns....except BBW.

Read the FBI document I posted yesterday about active shooter (I assume it will have another new case this morning after teh events in Tulsa last night). I don't get why this difference in what this thread is about, and what BBW wants to focus on (and we know why) is so difficult to comprehend.

---

Why didn't you address the statistics you questioned? You said I "sic" "mislead, made up etc..." what I posted.

I brought the damn receipts. I flat out proved that you lied about what I posted. You have NO rebuttal other than to pivot to another red herring argument.

You have been exposed for what you are. Pathetic.

You keep saying that handguns shouldn't be the concern or there is "no chance" of eliminating the handgun violence. Why is that?

Why do you not want to target inner city violence? Why do you not want to address the perpetrators, the gangs, the drugs, the politicians that refuse to prosecute them and hold them accountable?

What gives? Why are you in obvious defend mode to protect gangs, ignore inner city violence and most of all continue to support and not call out the DAs that refuse to prosecute or hold them accountable?

Answer up please... the board is watching.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Let's say I agree with health care being a basic right…. If someone were to ask me: how does a person obtain that basic right? How should I answer them?

---

Health care isn't and never will be a right. It's a service. What gives you the right to demand someone else's time as a right?

---

Hokie, I agree with you…. The question is still open. People do believe it's a basic right, so, how does a person obtain that basic right?

I'm always wanting to hear and understand people when they say this stuff. Rights have to come from somewhere, right?

---

correct but you can't make someone else's time your right. I never really understand that argument.

There are many issues with Health Care in the US and they are all because of Govt interference in supply and demand in the market because of expense.

I would rather some Health Care be expensive because it is introducing new treatments and equipment and is on the forefront of health care on this planet. We should never suppress innovation in health care.

Innovation unfortunately costs money and that money needs to be recouped.

At the same time, regulation, such as certificate of need laws are created to help "control the cost of health care" but all it does is depress the supply and does nothing with the demand.

So what you really need are a couple of things in my mind:

1. More competition in the private insurance market to drive down the cost, regulation of what needs to be included in an insurance plan needs to be reduced. There shouldn't be just one offering of a plan that covers everything but only the deductibles are your option. You should be able to create you plan based on your sex and what life stage you are in.

2. Less regulation on the supply of health care facilities so that demand can be met

3. We as a society have to decide if we are going to use our collected tax money to fund Medicaid for those who still can't afford private insurance.

There is never going to be equity of care and equity of outcome in health care because each persons diagnosis' and needs are different. To treat everyone the same is in the name is equity is dumb

Note to BBW - hey look! A plan presented by me, something you claim I never do!

---

Hokie, I think you and I are in the same camp about this issue. That's not my point.. We have people that say: Healthcare is a basic right, including those in the Whitehouse, right now.

People believe its a right! We hear it all the time. I agree its a service provided by someone to another. For those that think it's a right, I think it's important to have them explain how one gets this right. Where did it come from?

It came out of this equity talk that's popped up the last few years

hokiewolf said:

---

It came out of this equity talk that's popped up the last few years

---

Hokie, I think I'm doing a poor job of getting my point across...

My question of "Where did it come from"? is asking the person the believes its a right. Rights, I believe, come from a creator, as stated in our declaration. So, does our creator give us rights for healthcare?

My apologies if this was already posted…but notable considering it is FL

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

BBW12OG said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

---

LOL...you guys continue with your "look over here" tactics. We ALL know the crime stats BBW wants us to focus on are bad. Inner city crime is bad. But as I've said over and over -- you don't care, I don't care, the media doesn't care, and the politiicans don't care. Cruel...absolutely. But the vast majority of it is drug/gang/crime fueled and so people just don't care. Hokie created a whole thread about it, and your stats are welcome there, and maybe you guys can come up with some solutions to stop those drive-bys and retribution shootings.

The FBI created a new term around "active shooter situations" - those are the ones people care about because it happens where we (or our family) live and work. It is in the schools, the places of work, the shopping centers, etc. This thread has been about the Texas shooting and the availabilty of the AR type weapons so often used in the mass shootings. BBW wants to talk about the inner city crime and such -- which is typically hand guns. No one here has been talking about hand guns....except BBW.

Read the FBI document I posted yesterday about active shooter (I assume it will have another new case this morning after teh events in Tulsa last night). I don't get why this difference in what this thread is about, and what BBW wants to focus on (and we know why) is so difficult to comprehend.

---

Why didn't you address the statistics you questioned? You said I "sic" "mislead, made up etc..." what I posted.

I brought the damn receipts. I flat out proved that you lied about what I posted. You have NO rebuttal other than to pivot to another red herring argument.

You have been exposed for what you are. Pathetic.

You keep saying that handguns shouldn't be the concern or there is "no chance" of eliminating the handgun violence. Why is that?

Why do you not want to target inner city violence? Why do you not want to address the perpetrators, the gangs, the drugs, the politicians that refuse to prosecute them and hold them accountable?

What gives? Why are you in obvious defend mode to protect gangs, ignore inner city violence and most of all continue to support and not call out the DAs that refuse to prosecute or hold them accountable?

Answer up please... the board is watching.

---

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

I'll ask you one....why do you care about inner city violence?

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Let's say I agree with health care being a basic right…. If someone were to ask me: how does a person obtain that basic right? How should I answer them?

---

Health care isn't and never will be a right. It's a service. What gives you the right to demand someone else's time as a right?

---

Hokie, I agree with you…. The question is still open. People do believe it's a basic right, so, how does a person obtain that basic right?

I'm always wanting to hear and understand people when they say this stuff. Rights have to come from somewhere, right?

---

correct but you can't make someone else's time your right. I never really understand that argument.

There are many issues with Health Care in the US and they are all because of Govt interference in supply and demand in the market because of expense.

I would rather some Health Care be expensive because it is introducing new treatments and equipment and is on the forefront of health care on this planet. We should never suppress innovation in health care.

Innovation unfortunately costs money and that money needs to be recouped.

At the same time, regulation, such as certificate of need laws are created to help "control the cost of health care" but all it does is depress the supply and does nothing with the demand.

So what you really need are a couple of things in my mind:

1. More competition in the private insurance market to drive down the cost, regulation of what needs to be included in an insurance plan needs to be reduced. There shouldn't be just one offering of a plan that covers everything but only the deductibles are your option. You should be able to create you plan based on your sex and what life stage you are in.

2. Less regulation on the supply of health care facilities so that demand can be met

3. We as a society have to decide if we are going to use our collected tax money to fund Medicaid for those who still can't afford private insurance.

There is never going to be equity of care and equity of outcome in health care because each persons diagnosis' and needs are different. To treat everyone the same is in the name is equity is dumb

Note to BBW - hey look! A plan presented by me, something you claim I never do!

---

Hokie, I couldn't have said it better myself! Government involvement does not make Healthcare better. It's a big reason why costs are so high now. Regulation. It's also why college tuition prices went up. Government got involved.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Why should the gun shop be held accountable? Why should the manufacturer of the gun or the bullets be held accountable? Where did they fail in their responsibilities? Or is this more of the stupid woke posturing that does nothing?

---

Exactly! The family failed the kid, then law enforcement failed to act upon incidents they should've.

---

Given the # of changes in the story over the past week, I'd think we should probably allow the experts to review and tell us exactly what was missing in this story.thid the police file something and it stopped in the system?
Did teachers?
Did everyone ignore or did it get caught up in a system. Or did the people at the end of the line who are supposed to stop a sale just not get the message?


Same with the guy from Buffalo, who fortunately for him, has been long forgotten already. But what were his signs? Who knew? How did he still get weapons?

---

Have not heard that portion of the story change. Besides, do you not see failures in your entire list that could've made a difference?

---

What part of hold those who let him slip thru accountable do you disagree with? You say, blame his parents, blame the police....ok, I agree. Take the use case, figure out how to make it safer so this guy doesn't get the guns.
Again -- its all part of a dialog. We should be smart enough to figure something out....instead, we (collectively, the US) will end up saying "we alreayd had laws", we want people to be able to ahve whatever weapon they want, and we are going to put this back on teachers, parents, and community to turn people in. And then hope the system works and person isn't allowed to buy a weapon.
Of course, if they aren't, then they'll just go buy one from the guy down the street who has 50 ars and a ton of ammo.

---

Okay, let's take the recent events that my wife dealt with.
- A kid sees a video posted by a classmate saying shoot up the school.
- Kid tells mom. Mom tells teacher.
- Teacher tells principal.
- Principal tells school district and school officer.
- District holds a hearing and expels kid for the remainder of the year.
- Parents say it was just a joke and the teachers were out to get their kid.

Now, there was also supposed to be a criminal investigation, but the school wasn't notified of their findings or any punishment handed down. So we don't know what happened.

For the purpose of this example, let's say there was no punishment and 8 years from now this kid shoots up a school. Looking at this example, where do we see failures?

---

8 years later? I'd like to think there would be many more opportunities to stop it after school.
but, to play along. Teach did her job. Seems the principal did. To me, expulsion is a waste, if not coupled with mandatory counseling at that. Its silly for me or you or the principal or elected school board leader, all untrained, to make that decision....let a health expert decide if he was joking or was a sign. Parents should have an input, of coruse, but we know they are usually going to be protective and want to keep kid out of trouble.
So that type of "red flag" should 100% warrant a medical follow up.
After that.....gets even more complicated for follow up, notifications, etc.

BTW, I'd dare say, if we knew the # of kids in our schools on various drugs to keep their brain functioning smoothly, we'd be scared.

---

8 years, I'm assuming that's at 18. The expulsion was for the remainder of the year. He was on a pass to attend the school where my wife works. Next year he'll have to go to the school in his boundary. But, if they know of this, who would want this kid in their school?

In this example, I see the failure from the police and from the parents. Most on this board, I think, would really want to get their kid help. But, parents these days don't want to see fault in their kids and it really fails the kid for his future. This is where we get kids that don't respect authority and don't have coping skills when life hits them in the face, as we all know it does.

The police fail because they don't want to punish a 10 yr old. It they're too lazy to do the report. Or they feel bad for the kid. Whatever. We have to hold people accountable for bad decisions they make. If there are no consequences, they'll just keep doing stupid things. Those things lead to killings of innocent people.

---

Ahhhh, didn't realize you were talking about an 8yo. Its really difficult to fathom an 8 yo having the capacity to form that type of evil thought, but then, the world is different, no doubt.
You hear stories about "looking into someone's eyes and seeing evil" --- I've had that experience once in my life and it was with a 6 yo.
Granted, this was at an orphanage in Guatemala...he'd been abused severely and abandoned, and this US Christian supported orphanage took him in with all its other kids. We were warned. He was charming and playing like any other kid. Then, he just flipped and started acting out. Laughing like a hyena the whole time He had this look in his eyes....I'd never seen it, and I was scared, just thinking....this kid is going to grow up and he is full of evil. Not his fault, but he was ruined.

I'm guessing your wife's 8yo is not in the same background, but i also believe chemical imbalances just make people off. So, to your point...how do you know.
I think we have to take them all seriously now. I get letting him back in school...but I'd make him have a counseling check every x months to make sure he's on track.

And yet...if someone doesn't really know the subject, its easy to fool. The guy in Buffalo...if he can act normal during a quick check, what you gonna do?

---

Yea it was a 10 yr old, assuming the intent when he turned 18. But, no matter. Agree 100%! He should be required to have annual counseling or some sorts. I honestly think that if you begin to punish kids at these early ages for stupid choices, it will not only get their attention, but it'll get the attention of other parents that would actually start parenting their own kids because they don't want them to end up like little Jimmy up the street.

---

back to your question about who should have done what....i like the examples quoted in the CNN article i posted that are happening in FL.
Sound like it is the police in that case that are escalating the use cases, but still seems it would take community involvement.

Packchem91 said:

---

My apologies if this was already posted…but notable considering it is FL

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

---

Exactly how it should work! If people are going to be stupid with their guns, that shows irresponsible behavior. Just like you take away a toy from a child for bad behavior, same thing here. Punish stupid behavior and people will start thinking twice, just like when we were children.

Look at how those in power bungled pandemic response, and continue to do so. And we want to let them manage all healthcare? Hard pass.

Packchem91 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW, your data doesn't lie. I think the issue, as a country, we have, is more about selective outrage. I believe a person could have the same outrage and have more impact if they included all the data you pointed out.

As a country, we have a bad incident, and people (probably led by the MSM) want to jump on the bandwagon. I believe your point is around the inconsistency of the argument and not the argument itself, correct?

Regarding Chem, he probably does have the same outrage when confronted with all the facts. That said, I think you are pointing out that his post aren't showing it.

Chem, from my point of view, consistency is all anybody wants to hear. BBW does provide data points that projects a different reality to the medias narrative. Also, I believe BBW is being consistent with his value of life, at any age, and the unborn.

Chem, I think a good debate is in order…

---

LOL...you guys continue with your "look over here" tactics. We ALL know the crime stats BBW wants us to focus on are bad. Inner city crime is bad. But as I've said over and over -- you don't care, I don't care, the media doesn't care, and the politiicans don't care. Cruel...absolutely. But the vast majority of it is drug/gang/crime fueled and so people just don't care. Hokie created a whole thread about it, and your stats are welcome there, and maybe you guys can come up with some solutions to stop those drive-bys and retribution shootings.

The FBI created a new term around "active shooter situations" - those are the ones people care about because it happens where we (or our family) live and work. It is in the schools, the places of work, the shopping centers, etc. This thread has been about the Texas shooting and the availabilty of the AR type weapons so often used in the mass shootings. BBW wants to talk about the inner city crime and such -- which is typically hand guns. No one here has been talking about hand guns....except BBW.

Read the FBI document I posted yesterday about active shooter (I assume it will have another new case this morning after teh events in Tulsa last night). I don't get why this difference in what this thread is about, and what BBW wants to focus on (and we know why) is so difficult to comprehend.

---

Why didn't you address the statistics you questioned? You said I "sic" "mislead, made up etc..." what I posted.

I brought the damn receipts. I flat out proved that you lied about what I posted. You have NO rebuttal other than to pivot to another red herring argument.

You have been exposed for what you are. Pathetic.

You keep saying that handguns shouldn't be the concern or there is "no chance" of eliminating the handgun violence. Why is that?

Why do you not want to target inner city violence? Why do you not want to address the perpetrators, the gangs, the drugs, the politicians that refuse to prosecute them and hold them accountable?

What gives? Why are you in obvious defend mode to protect gangs, ignore inner city violence and most of all continue to support and not call out the DAs that refuse to prosecute or hold them accountable?

Answer up please... the board is watching.

---

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

I'll ask you one....why do you care about inner city violence?

---

No.. You absolutely did not. You lied about my posts several times, deflected from answering and pivoted to another topic.

You don't care about inner city violence? We all as Americans should be concerned when cities are turned into warzones.

We should be concerned when dozens are gunned down on a nightly basis and not one of the leaders in the cities seem to care.

Why don't you care about inner city violence? Do the lives of those gunned downed, murdered not matter to you?

You are a piece of work....

packgrad said:

---

Look at how those in power bungled pandemic response, and continue to do so. And we want to let them manage all healthcare? Hard pass.

---

The laziness of the left is on full display with the comment from dogplasma. Typical...

When you are used to the government handing you everything you think you need you become reliant. Look at the left run cities that are in disarray and have been for decades but they maintain power because they have created a voting base that is beholden to them.

Once a person becomes dependent solely on one supplier of needs they have no choice but to continue that dependency.

That's how MARXISM works.

But you have to have a population that is OK with being lazy and expectant of handouts....i.e. the lefties.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

My apologies if this was already posted…but notable considering it is FL

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

---

Exactly how it should work! If people are going to be stupid with their guns, that shows irresponsible behavior. Just like you take away a toy from a child for bad behavior, same thing here. Punish stupid behavior and people will start thinking twice, just like when we were children.

---

The only issue I have with this is it being done on a Federal level. States should, if the constituents want it, pass their version of this Florida law.

caryking said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

My apologies if this was already posted…but notable considering it is FL

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

---

Exactly how it should work! If people are going to be stupid with their guns, that shows irresponsible behavior. Just like you take away a toy from a child for bad behavior, same thing here. Punish stupid behavior and people will start thinking twice, just like when we were children.

---

The only issue I have with this is it being done on a Federal level. States should, if the constituents want it, pass their version of this Florida law.

---

Agree, I think very little should be done at the federal level. Was this not a state bill?

Absolutely should be left up to the people in the states.

Look at California.. who the hell wants to be run like that?

Ooops.... plenty on here dream of it.

Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad.

Regarding red flag laws, they can be very good if managed at the local level by competent law enforcement. There are many reasons to avoid passing a federal red flag law though. The editors at National Review have been advocates for state passed red flag laws for quite some time, but not national laws. The Feds are not trustworthy and don't have the authority in the first place.

Quote:

---

Legalities aside, it would be a mistake for the federal government to try to create and administer a red-flag system itself. If such laws are to work effectively, it will be because the government that administers them inspires confidence and is close and accessible to the people availing themselves of the laws. There is far too much distance between the federal government and the citizenry for this to work at a national level. There is a reason that Florida's red-flag law which was passed after the 2018 Parkland shooting is run on a county-by-county basis, and administered by local police, and that reason is that, in this matter, local is better. The FBI is not set up to execute such a system, and the federal courts are not set up to adjudicate it. And, even if they were, Americans would be right to oppose elevating yet another question to the national level.

After the last few years, especially, it is not irrational for the citizenry to worry about putting such a sensitive power in the hands of people (i.e. Joe Biden) who are on record arguing that they shouldn't be able to own mainstream firearms in the first place. It is likewise not irrational for the citizenry to mistrust the capacity of the FBI and the federal bureaucracy to keep political bias out of the process. It was only two weeks ago that this administration was laboring to wield a mass shooting in Buffalo as a club against anyone who watches Tucker Carlson or frets about the demographic impact of immigration. The last thing America needs is one more fundamental right whose security varies by who wins the next presidential election.

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad.

Regarding red flag laws, they can be very good if managed at the local level by competent law enforcement. There are many reasons to avoid passing a federal red flag law though. The editors at National Review have been advocates for state passed red flag laws for quite some time, but not national laws. The Feds are not trustworthy and don't have the authority in the first place.

Quote:

---

Legalities aside, it would be a mistake for the federal government to try to create and administer a red-flag system itself. If such laws are to work effectively, it will be because the government that administers them inspires confidence and is close and accessible to the people availing themselves of the laws. There is far too much distance between the federal government and the citizenry for this to work at a national level. There is a reason that Florida's red-flag law which was passed after the 2018 Parkland shooting is run on a county-by-county basis, and administered by local police, and that reason is that, in this matter, local is better. The FBI is not set up to execute such a system, and the federal courts are not set up to adjudicate it. And, even if they were, Americans would be right to oppose elevating yet another question to the national level.

After the last few years, especially, it is not irrational for the citizenry to worry about putting such a sensitive power in the hands of people (i.e. Joe Biden) who are on record arguing that they shouldn't be able to own mainstream firearms in the first place. It is likewise not irrational for the citizenry to mistrust the capacity of the FBI and the federal bureaucracy to keep political bias out of the process. It was only two weeks ago that this administration was laboring to wield a mass shooting in Buffalo as a club against anyone who watches Tucker Carlson or frets about the demographic impact of immigration. The last thing America needs is one more fundamental right whose security varies by who wins the next presidential election.

---

---

Excellent breakdown on red flag laws not being done at a national level. Federally, the left has already weaponized the fbi and cdc. Hard to imagine giving the fbi more overreach and power.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

My apologies if this was already posted…but notable considering it is FL

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

---

Exactly how it should work! If people are going to be stupid with their guns, that shows irresponsible behavior. Just like you take away a toy from a child for bad behavior, same thing here. Punish stupid behavior and people will start thinking twice, just like when we were children.

---

agreed. this seems logical. Question would be -- again, how do these examples get escalated up for action? And lets then hope police forces are willing to do the additional paperwork / tasks to put them in front of a judge.

Quote:

---

"Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad."

---

They can't discuss the handgun issue legitimately because they would have to own up to who the perpetrators are, what cities the crimes occur and who is in charge of those cities where gun violence is more common than reading at grade level.

PackFansXL said:

---

Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad.

Regarding red flag laws, they can be very good if managed at the local level by competent law enforcement. There are many reasons to avoid passing a federal red flag law though. The editors at National Review have been advocates for state passed red flag laws for quite some time, but not national laws. The Feds are not trustworthy and don't have the authority in the first place.

Quote:

---

Legalities aside, it would be a mistake for the federal government to try to create and administer a red-flag system itself. If such laws are to work effectively, it will be because the government that administers them inspires confidence and is close and accessible to the people availing themselves of the laws. There is far too much distance between the federal government and the citizenry for this to work at a national level. There is a reason that Florida's red-flag law which was passed after the 2018 Parkland shooting is run on a county-by-county basis, and administered by local police, and that reason is that, in this matter, local is better. The FBI is not set up to execute such a system, and the federal courts are not set up to adjudicate it. And, even if they were, Americans would be right to oppose elevating yet another question to the national level.

After the last few years, especially, it is not irrational for the citizenry to worry about putting such a sensitive power in the hands of people (i.e. Joe Biden) who are on record arguing that they shouldn't be able to own mainstream firearms in the first place. It is likewise not irrational for the citizenry to mistrust the capacity of the FBI and the federal bureaucracy to keep political bias out of the process. It was only two weeks ago that this administration was laboring to wield a mass shooting in Buffalo as a club against anyone who watches Tucker Carlson or frets about the demographic impact of immigration. The last thing America needs is one more fundamental right whose security varies by who wins the next presidential election.

---

---

I suspect that is more definitional. Some (including fbi) have denoted mass killings that include drive-bys, shootouts at parties, etc that are directly related to gang violence.

The active shooter report narrows that to specifically exclude those types. It is a behavioral study, essentially.


And I think reasonable minds can agree on these differences are plausible and recognizable. Which, or either, addressable?

The murders we don't talk about in Chicago, Detroit, DC, Boston are NOT teh same as the ones in Buffalo, Uvalde, and Tulsa. Nor should they likely be addressed the same way

packgrad said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad.

Regarding red flag laws, they can be very good if managed at the local level by competent law enforcement. There are many reasons to avoid passing a federal red flag law though. The editors at National Review have been advocates for state passed red flag laws for quite some time, but not national laws. The Feds are not trustworthy and don't have the authority in the first place.

Quote:

---

Legalities aside, it would be a mistake for the federal government to try to create and administer a red-flag system itself. If such laws are to work effectively, it will be because the government that administers them inspires confidence and is close and accessible to the people availing themselves of the laws. There is far too much distance between the federal government and the citizenry for this to work at a national level. There is a reason that Florida's red-flag law which was passed after the 2018 Parkland shooting is run on a county-by-county basis, and administered by local police, and that reason is that, in this matter, local is better. The FBI is not set up to execute such a system, and the federal courts are not set up to adjudicate it. And, even if they were, Americans would be right to oppose elevating yet another question to the national level.

After the last few years, especially, it is not irrational for the citizenry to worry about putting such a sensitive power in the hands of people (i.e. Joe Biden) who are on record arguing that they shouldn't be able to own mainstream firearms in the first place. It is likewise not irrational for the citizenry to mistrust the capacity of the FBI and the federal bureaucracy to keep political bias out of the process. It was only two weeks ago that this administration was laboring to wield a mass shooting in Buffalo as a club against anyone who watches Tucker Carlson or frets about the demographic impact of immigration. The last thing America needs is one more fundamental right whose security varies by who wins the next presidential election.

---

---

Excellent breakdown on red flag laws not being done at a national level. Federally, the left has already weaponized the fbi and cdc. Hard to imagine giving the fbi more overreach and power.

---

absolutely no issue with states defining this. The FBI studies should help empower those making decisions based on behavior, not suggest the FBI has to be invovled with implementation.

But...do something. If FL can do it, why can't NC, NY, and other states. And of course, it will not solve all, nor will it prevent every disaster.

BBW12OG said:

---

Quote:

---

"Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad."

---

They can't discuss the handgun issue legitimately because they would have to own up to who the perpetrators are, what cities the crimes occur and who is in charge of those cities where gun violence is more common than reading at grade level.

---

can you take your racist crap to the other thread, and leave this one for adults?

Packchem91 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Quote:

---

"Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad."

---

They can't discuss the handgun issue legitimately because they would have to own up to who the perpetrators are, what cities the crimes occur and who is in charge of those cities where gun violence is more common than reading at grade level.

---

can you take your racist crap to the other thread, and leave this one for adults?

---

Ha Ha!! Calling you out for your attempt to spin this is easy. You can't handle the facts can you?

Your focus only on school shootings while wanting to ban guns is laughable and predictable. I notice you can't for the life of you dispute one damn thing I have said or the facts I have posted.

If you are such a champion of gun control then why won't you address the biggest problem we have in the country surrounding guns today? How many school shootings were last night? How many inner city shootings occurred last night? Why aren't you banging your racist gong or those guns to be banned? Do tell.

As far as the "racist" goes there's not a doubt in anyone's mind that has read this board who the resident racist is. And that my friend is you by a loooonnnnnngggggg shot. Own it. It is who you are.

Packchem91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad.

Regarding red flag laws, they can be very good if managed at the local level by competent law enforcement. There are many reasons to avoid passing a federal red flag law though. The editors at National Review have been advocates for state passed red flag laws for quite some time, but not national laws. The Feds are not trustworthy and don't have the authority in the first place.

Quote:

---

Legalities aside, it would be a mistake for the federal government to try to create and administer a red-flag system itself. If such laws are to work effectively, it will be because the government that administers them inspires confidence and is close and accessible to the people availing themselves of the laws. There is far too much distance between the federal government and the citizenry for this to work at a national level. There is a reason that Florida's red-flag law which was passed after the 2018 Parkland shooting is run on a county-by-county basis, and administered by local police, and that reason is that, in this matter, local is better. The FBI is not set up to execute such a system, and the federal courts are not set up to adjudicate it. And, even if they were, Americans would be right to oppose elevating yet another question to the national level.

After the last few years, especially, it is not irrational for the citizenry to worry about putting such a sensitive power in the hands of people (i.e. Joe Biden) who are on record arguing that they shouldn't be able to own mainstream firearms in the first place. It is likewise not irrational for the citizenry to mistrust the capacity of the FBI and the federal bureaucracy to keep political bias out of the process. It was only two weeks ago that this administration was laboring to wield a mass shooting in Buffalo as a club against anyone who watches Tucker Carlson or frets about the demographic impact of immigration. The last thing America needs is one more fundamental right whose security varies by who wins the next presidential election.

---

---

Excellent breakdown on red flag laws not being done at a national level. Federally, the left has already weaponized the fbi and cdc. Hard to imagine giving the fbi more overreach and power.

---

absolutely no issue with states defining this. The FBI studies should help empower those making decisions based on behavior, not suggest the FBI has to be invovled with implementation.

But...do something. If FL can do it, why can't NC, NY, and other states. And of course, it will not solve all, nor will it prevent every disaster.

---

NY already has red flag laws. They even detained the Buffalo idiot but let him go without blocking his access to legally purchase firearms.

If we make laws at the federal level, the FBI will be empowered to enforce them. They already are empowered to make decisions on who can purchase and who can't. They already fail in that role on a routine basis. They are highly politicized as recent history has made glaringly obvious.

Few, if any, red flag laws require counseling for the person who has most shown the need for it. This is an obvious needed improvement.

One more point about this discussion. The reason folks point to the horrific gun crime in liberal run cities is not to deflect from a school shooting, but to draw attention to the fact that the democrats really are not serious about solving our gun violence problem. They only care about issues they think will motivate their supporters to vote them back into office. Dead school kids? Surely that will galvanize the democratic base to vote despite abysmal performance in office. Dead gang bangers? They have already passed draconian laws in those cities to no avail, but they already own the local politics; so, there is no benefit in looking at gun violence there. This is not a new phenomenon. Why do you think Biden is against improving security at schools? Let that sink in. The POTUS, or his handlers, are only interested in one aspect of the solution space because they think it will help them come election time. It's disgusting and it's wrong.

PackFansXL said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Chem, that was a surprisingly good article considering it came from CNN. Based on your FBI link, they mistakenly claimed that the AR15 is the weapon most used in mass shootings. Per the link you posted, handguns are the weapon most used. Other than that, it wasn't too bad.

Regarding red flag laws, they can be very good if managed at the local level by competent law enforcement. There are many reasons to avoid passing a federal red flag law though. The editors at National Review have been advocates for state passed red flag laws for quite some time, but not national laws. The Feds are not trustworthy and don't have the authority in the first place.

Quote:

---

Legalities aside, it would be a mistake for the federal government to try to create and administer a red-flag system itself. If such laws are to work effectively, it will be because the government that administers them inspires confidence and is close and accessible to the people availing themselves of the laws. There is far too much distance between the federal government and the citizenry for this to work at a national level. There is a reason that Florida's red-flag law which was passed after the 2018 Parkland shooting is run on a county-by-county basis, and administered by local police, and that reason is that, in this matter, local is better. The FBI is not set up to execute such a system, and the federal courts are not set up to adjudicate it. And, even if they were, Americans would be right to oppose elevating yet another question to the national level.

After the last few years, especially, it is not irrational for the citizenry to worry about putting such a sensitive power in the hands of people (i.e. Joe Biden) who are on record arguing that they shouldn't be able to own mainstream firearms in the first place. It is likewise not irrational for the citizenry to mistrust the capacity of the FBI and the federal bureaucracy to keep political bias out of the process. It was only two weeks ago that this administration was laboring to wield a mass shooting in Buffalo as a club against anyone who watches Tucker Carlson or frets about the demographic impact of immigration. The last thing America needs is one more fundamental right whose security varies by who wins the next presidential election.

---

---

Excellent breakdown on red flag laws not being done at a national level. Federally, the left has already weaponized the fbi and cdc. Hard to imagine giving the fbi more overreach and power.

---

absolutely no issue with states defining this. The FBI studies should help empower those making decisions based on behavior, not suggest the FBI has to be invovled with implementation.

But...do something. If FL can do it, why can't NC, NY, and other states. And of course, it will not solve all, nor will it prevent every disaster.

---

NY already has red flag laws. They even detained the Buffalo idiot but let him go without blocking his access to legally purchase firearms.

If we make laws at the federal level, the FBI will be empowered to enforce them. They already are empowered to make decisions on who can purchase and who can't. They already fail in that role on a routine basis. They are highly politicized as recent history has made glaringly obvious.

Few, if any, red flag laws require counseling for the person who has most shown the need for it. This is an obvious needed improvement.

One more point about this discussion. The reason folks point to the horrific gun crime in liberal run cities is not to deflect from a school shooting, but to draw attention to the fact that the democrats really are not serious about solving our gun violence problem. They only care about issues they think will motivate their supporters to vote them back into office. Dead school kids? Surely that will galvanize the democratic base to vote despite abysmal performance in office. Dead gang bangers? They have already passed draconian laws in those cities to no avail, but they already own the local politics; so, there is no benefit in looking at gun violence there. This is not a new phenomenon. Why do you think Biden is against improving security at schools? Let that sink in. The POTUS, or his handlers, are only interested in one aspect of the solution space because they think it will help them come election time. It's disgusting and it's wrong.

---

Exactly. And it's also why they create statistics about mass shootings that exclude inner cities/gangs/drugs. There is not a federal response that works better for one than the other, but they can politicize the response to this one. I read an article that used a term that struck with me. Their response is "ornamental". It caters to their base, but there is an understanding that they are not going to do anything substantively about it.

It is absolutely disgusting.

Packchem91 said:

---

Steve Videtich said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

My apologies if this was already posted…but notable considering it is FL

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/01/politics/florida-red-flag-law/index.html

---

Exactly how it should work! If people are going to be stupid with their guns, that shows irresponsible behavior. Just like you take away a toy from a child for bad behavior, same thing here. Punish stupid behavior and people will start thinking twice, just like when we were children.

---

agreed. this seems logical. Question would be -- again, how do these examples get escalated up for action? And lets then hope police forces are willing to do the additional paperwork / tasks to put them in front of a judge.

---

What I like about these, is that they're stemming from an incident where people do something stupid with a weapon. None of them stemmed from protecting themselves. And none of it came from reports of, "my ex is acting funny" you're off things.

Like I said before, if you start taking their toys away for bad behavior, they and others will learn from these lessons. It'll be painful at the beginning, but eventually proper use of gun ownership will be created.

packgrad said:

---

Look at how those in power bungled pandemic response, and continue to do so. And we want to let them manage all healthcare? Hard pass.

---

Agreed, let freedom reign (and ring).