Shooting with multiple fatalities at theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: muse7

Liar.

I've stated repeatedly that we need to reverse the drastic closings of mental health facilities done in the 80's under Reagan.

Obamacare gives everyone costly physical care, but doesn't do dick for mental care.

I'm all for universal mental health care. It doesn't exist anymore. Not in any relevant way.

Beez is back!!!!!

You used to do this all the time, you got your new job and stopped.

Breezer the great and powerful is back!!!!

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

a reply to: johnwick

Being "nice" doesn't get the point across, especially when everyone is focusing in the gun and ignoring the shooter.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Bullsh!t!!!!!!!

The "logical" path would be to heal the SICK MAN!!!

Cheee-rist Almighty!

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Bullsh!t!!!!!!!

The "logical" path would be to heal the SICK MAN!!!

Cheee-rist Almighty!

The logical path would be to screen for mental illness. Make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns.

But whine some more..

a reply to: JacKatMtn

For a nation with 300+ million guns (that's a gun for and every person) it's near impossible for any state to put any amount of legislation in place to limit the level of gun violence out there. Take New York for example... in 2012 they seized approx 9,000 guns in that year and around over 80% of those weapons originated from outside of State lines.. most of them coming from Virignia:
www.thenewyorkworld.com...

No amount of gun legislation in one State is going to limit the fluidity and accessibility of guns in this country. It may slow down abit, but not make much of a difference. US states can't enforce gun laws in the same way that individual sovereign nations do. Borders are open, movement is free.

You can't legislate 100% safety....

No, you can't legislate 100% safety. You can however address America's out of control gun violence and shootings which are among the most in the world. It's a problem and sweeping it under the rug isn't going to solve it. To put this all in perspective, the United Kingdom has a population density 660 people per square mile compared to the US with 35 people per square mile. Japan has 330 people per square mile. Yet both Japan and the UK have far lower rates of gun violence compared to the US. Far lower. We shouldn't just accept this as the 'norm' as evidently it's far from it.

a reply to: krosnos

Sorry to jump in, but what constitutes mental illness?

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: johnwick
Well John, with a username as yours I would have to take second fiddle (so to say) however I would gladly be your backup. I would not however fire anymore rounds than necessary as it is a waste of good ammo and makes for a difficult defense in the foolish criminal charges that would follow, just be efficient and safe.

They're sending robots in now to open the trunk of the shooters car.

originally posted by: krosnos

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Bullsh!t!!!!!!!

The "logical" path would be to heal the SICK MAN!!!

Cheee-rist Almighty!

The logical path would be to screen for mental illness. Make it harder for mentally ill people to get guns.

But whine some more..

Not whining.

If you heal the sick man, he may not want to buy the firearm. Then you wouldn't have to write anymore idiotic laws that infringe upon MY rights!

Unless that is your goal anyways.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Once again thanks to the GCA of 1968, and the Brady law of the 90s.

It is already ILLEGAL for a 'sick' man to possess a firearm.

a reply to: ventian

The usual ones, suicidal thoughts, delusional thoughts, irrational fears..etc

This smells like yet another case of right wing terrorism. And yes, if I'm right, the term 'terrorist' applies absolutely. As, frankly, it should have with Roof. But nobody dared say it. It was deadly violence, which was at least in part politically motivated. You need to be of a darker hue and the sort that prays on a rug to be considered a potential terrorist in the 21st century. If a McVeigh struck tomorrow, I doubt people would be so willing now as they were then to call his act an act of terrorism.

In this case, consider the following:
Amy Schumer (the star of Train Wreck) is a noted, outspoken feminist. Now, that's a dirty word in the minds of a few knuckle daggers around these parts, but in mine it's not. Not necessarily. She's hilarious and at the peak of her success right now.

50-something white male. A lot of fellows in that demographic are divorced, bitter, and have a chip on his shoulder about it.

But nah, he's just 'mentally ill.' And every non-violent mentally ill person in the world will get just that little bit extra dose of suspicion on their shoulders. As if we're all ticking bombs just waiting to go off and kill a room full of people.

Give more people more guns and the problem will sort itself out - ATS logic.

Just an angle to consider.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: johnwick

So same question to you then. What do black people or violence in the inner cities have to do with an old white guy shooting up a movie theater?

Guns, and gun laws obviously.

Thought that was obvious.

All the mass shootings in the last 10 years don't equal Chicago gang shootings last year.

That is why.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: beezzer

Just sick and tired of people wee'ing themselves about guns.

Bullets didn't do this.

A sick man did.

A sick man with a gun. The logical path would be to prevent the sick man from getting a gun.

Once again thanks to the GCA of 1968, and the Brady law of the 90s.

It is already ILLEGAL for a 'sick' man to possess a firearm.

And it obviously not working. Stricter laws are needed. Please don't use your stupid argument of murder is already illegal.

There needs to be stricter screening process to stop guns from getting into the wrong hands.

The GCA of 1968

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

en.wikipedia.org...

And wait for it.

VERBATIM in the Brady LAW.

4 Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;

en.wikipedia.org...

Even has the same number.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

So you agree with me that you can't legislate safety via gun laws, we have plenty in place.. and yet... we still have tragic crimes committed with firearms...

What would you do? eliminate firearms completely?

PLace armed guards on every street corner? Have everyone pass through a full body scanner every block?

At some point, you have to realize that some folks will go off the deep end (lately it's been folks that have been fully medicated, or missing their meds from BIG PHARMA), do we eliminate that as well?

I don't think I am on board this rollercoaster.... hold the perps responsible, not a lack of laws.....

originally posted by: beezzer

Not whining.

If you heal the sick man, he may not want to buy the firearm. Then you wouldn't have to write anymore idiotic laws that infringe upon MY rights!

Unless that is your goal anyways.

And if that does not work? Still allow these people to slip through and get guns?

Or maybe make the screening process better and make it harder for people to get guns.

a reply to: johnwick

I wasn't aware I had clicked a thread about black violence. Huh, fun. A thread about a 50-something white male murdering innocent bystanders hoping to enjoy a comedy film has transmorgified into a thread about black inner city violence. Funny how that happens.

a reply to: krosnos

And it obviously not working. Stricter laws are needed. Please don't use your stupid argument of murder is already illegal.

That's not a stupid argument.

That is a FACT.

Murder is illegal. See we have laws that says a person can't do that.

So we need more laws the LESS than 1% of the US population is never going to follow.

And my argument is 'stupid'.

I say more laws are stupid.