[quote]Gunfire erupted in a Columbia, Maryland, shopping mall Saturday morning, leaving at least three people dead, according to the Howard County Police Department's Twitter account.[/quote]
[URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/25/us/maryland-mall-shooting/[/URL]
HERE WE GO AGAIN
EDIT:
The shooter seems to be one of the dead according to ABC
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspected-shooter-dead-shooting-maryland-mall/story?id=21809168[/url]
obligatory post noting how many shootings we have had in the US so far this year
Tanks are reportedly 30 minutes from arriving at the mall
Shooter's been reported as one of the 3 dead according to ABC
The gunman is probably gonna commit suicide before he can be apprehended
Just throwing that out there
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;43667029]Shooter's been reported as one of the 3 dead according to ABC[/QUOTE]
welp
I think it's strange how suddenly we have what seems to be an increase in the rate of public shootings since last year. Sensationalism is probably to blame.
Kind of looks targeted if only two people besides the shooter are dead, though
It's pretty crazy for us here, friends on fb are going crazy as its a mall that's always been so quiet for us. I live 10 minutes away and been "the hangout" spot for everyone.
I live in Columbia, over the winter break. I was at the mall yesterday. At a conference I was at we had a moment of silence, about 10 minutes ago.
[QUOTE=dwt110;43667004]obligatory post noting how many shootings we have had in the US so far this year[/QUOTE]
You make it sound like that's a bad thing.
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;43667029]Shooter's been reported as one of the 3 dead according to ABC[/QUOTE]
added to OP
[QUOTE=smurfy;43667010]Tanks are reportedly 30 minutes from arriving at the mall[/QUOTE]
[thumb]http://www.elvisofvegas.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/5goldstars.gif[/thumb]
It's only been a few months since Comrade Governor O'malley instituted more restrictive gun laws to prevent such things, glad you took away some of my rights so this would never happen O'malley.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;43667052]I think it's strange how suddenly we have what seems to be an increase in the rate of public shootings since last year. Sensationalism is probably to blame.
Kind of looks targeted if only two people besides the shooter are dead, though[/QUOTE]
well the best way to hide a serious problem is to not report on it, i'd say this is a good thing?
[editline]25th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;43667577]It's only been a few months since Comrade Governor O'malley instituted more restrictive gun laws to prevent such things, glad you took away some of my rights so this would never happen O'malley.[/QUOTE]
you mean the one preventing people from bringing guns on school grounds? or the ability for someone to bring in a weapon purchased in another state and selling it privately? the one that just went into effect?? oh, what a travesty
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43667591]
[editline]25th January 2014[/editline]
you mean the one preventing people from bringing guns on school grounds? or the ability for someone to bring in a weapon purchased in another state and selling it privately? the one that just went into effect?? oh, what a travesty[/QUOTE]
when you get down to it, those laws were put in place to stop public/mass shootings.
did it do that?
no it didn't, so peoples rights were taken away and now it's been proven to be in vain.
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43667676]when you get down to it, those laws were put in place to stop public/mass shootings.
did it do that?
no it didn't, so peoples rights were taken away and now it's been proven to be in vain.[/QUOTE]
Because they expect a law to prevent ALL mass shootings
Because one instance of this happening shows that the law is completely ineffective at preventing shootings
Because that law has ANYTHING (other than guns) to do with the shooter in the first place
Because laws can't be adapted or changed to fix problems
ect
[quote]Howard County Police Chief Bill McMahon told reporters that [B]the shooter apparently shot two people before shitting himself in a store[/B] on the second floor. The motive was unclear.[/quote]
I burst out laughing for some reason. Didn't expect that.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;43667577]It's only been a few months since Comrade Governor O'malley instituted more restrictive gun laws to prevent such things, glad you took away some of my rights so this would never happen O'malley.[/QUOTE]
"Comrade" pfffftft
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43667676]when you get down to it, those laws were put in place to stop public/mass shootings.
did it do that?
no it didn't, so peoples rights were taken away and now it's been proven to be in vain.[/QUOTE]
"proven to be in vain" because of a shooting occurring? are you having a laugh?
people still murder each other. obviously, laws against murder are in vain.
people still drive drunk. obviously, laws against drunk driving are in vain.
people still avoid paying taxes. obviously, laws against tax evasion are in vain.
come on now, don't be silly. to make the claim that if a piece of legislation isn't 100% effective it is "in vain" is utter silliness. don't try to mickey mouse it. no one claims that laws are the [I]only [/I]thing that will stop bad shit from occurring. they are a [I]component[/I] of preventing bad shit from happening.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43667782]"proven to be in vain" because of a shooting occurring? are you having a laugh?
people still murder each other. obviously, laws against murder are in vain.
people still drive drunk. obviously, laws against drunk driving are in vain.
people still avoid paying taxes. obviously, laws against tax evasion are in vain.
come on now, don't be silly. to make the claim that if a piece of legislation isn't 100% effective it is "in vain" is utter silliness. don't try to mickey mouse it. no one claims that laws are the [I]only [/I]thing that will stop bad shit from occurring. they are a [I]component[/I] of preventing bad shit from happening.[/QUOTE]
The point being laws against murder, driving drunk, or paying taxes don't infringe on nation-old ideas and concepts. Sure times change and laws need to change with them, but in any circumstance taking away the defense of the public is an absurd idea. In no scenario other than utopia does it actually work as planned. Disarming the general public is a severe sign of a police state, not a free country.
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43667839]Disarming the general public is a severe sign of a police state, not a free country.[/QUOTE]
Sic semper tyrannis
You know it's bad when you aren't even surprised anymore.
Though I am curious as to what his motives were.
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43667839]The point being laws against murder, driving drunk, or paying taxes don't infringe on nation-old ideas and concepts. Sure times change and laws need to change with them, but in any circumstance taking away the defense of the public is an absurd idea. In no scenario other than utopia does it actually work as planned. Disarming the general public is a severe sign of a police state, not a free country.[/QUOTE]
and in no other place besides a utopia does arming the population en masse create a safer world.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43667977]and in no other place besides a utopia does arming the population en masse create a safer world.[/QUOTE]
so you're telling me a society that isn't scared of firearms and are well trained and knowledgeable about the subject, cannot defend themselves?
It does work out, because you aren't forcing people to do anything, you're giving them the option to learn how to use firearms, but just making it easier.
However, the opposite, banning ALL weapons, requires everyone to follow the law. Which we all know doesn't happen.
Care to explain a flaw in my logic here?
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43667839]The point being laws against murder, driving drunk, or paying taxes don't infringe on nation-old ideas and concepts. Sure times change and laws need to change with them, but in any circumstance taking away the defense of the public is an absurd idea. In no scenario other than utopia does it actually work as planned. Disarming the general public is a severe sign of a police state, not a free country.[/QUOTE]
>>>/pol/
america is shit
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43668018]so you're telling me a society that isn't scared of firearms and are well trained and knowledgeable about the subject, cannot defend themselves?
It does work out, because you aren't forcing people to do anything, you're giving them the option to learn how to use firearms, but just making it easier.
However, the opposite, banning ALL weapons, requires everyone to follow the law. Which we all know doesn't happen.
Care to explain a flaw in my logic here?[/QUOTE]
"GUNZ R EVIL THAT TELEPATHICALY TALK TO PEOPLE TO KILL AND YOU WANT THEM! NO GUNS = NO CRIME!"
Don't even try to debate man, their minds are too far gone. Let them live like that and wonder why the police don't help and they have nothing to defend themselves with.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43668048]america is shit[/QUOTE]
You have 240% MORE drug use.
105% MORE rapes.
75% MORE assaults.
25% overall MORE violent crimes then us. Yeah, we are so shit.
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43668018]so you're telling me a society that isn't scared of firearms and are well trained and knowledgeable about the subject, cannot defend themselves?
It does work out, because you aren't forcing people to do anything, you're giving them the option to learn how to use firearms, but just making it easier.
However, the opposite, banning ALL weapons, requires everyone to follow the law. Which we all know doesn't happen.
Care to explain a flaw in my logic here?[/QUOTE]
but he never said he wanted to ban all weapons?
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43668018]Care to explain a flaw in my logic here?[/QUOTE]
every country on the planet that isn't america
[QUOTE=lolz3;43668064]"GUNZ R EVIL THAT TELEPATHICALY TALK TO PEOPLE TO KILL AND YOU WANT THEM! NO GUNS = NO CRIME!"
Don't even try to debate man, their minds are too far gone. Let them live like that and wonder why the police don't help and they have nothing to defend themselves with.[/QUOTE]
I wish I had a gun to defend my foreskin but the tyrants got that too
[QUOTE=JazZ5109AI;43668018]so you're telling me a society that isn't scared of firearms and are well trained and knowledgeable about the subject, cannot defend themselves?
It does work out, because you aren't forcing people to do anything, you're giving them the option to learn how to use firearms, but just making it easier.
However, the opposite, banning ALL weapons, requires everyone to follow the law. Which we all know doesn't happen.
Care to explain a flaw in my logic here?[/QUOTE]
sure. there's a couple flaws.
first, you're ignoring real world inequality. person a, who has money, is able to purchase a firearm to defend themselves, especially against those who have firearms. person b, who does not have money, is not able to purchase a firearm and is thus thoroughly screwed. you create an extra level of inequality there, especially if you're depending on the necessity to be able to defend yourself.
second, you're ignoring real world psychology. thing called a group mentality exists. in order to maintain security for oneself, people tend to form into groups to maximize security for a group. this is one of the reason why kinship structures are big. this is also the reason why [I]gangs[/I] exist in urban centers. a group of people then organize to maximize their security, gathering their weapons. now, unless we're living in a utopia, a group of people that has an armory of weapons has the distinct possibility of using those weapons as a means of enforcing power over others. yknow, how gangs do in real life. daily.
third, we take these two things and combine them. group mentality + inherent inequalities. often times, one group is going to have better access to capital (through either legal or illegal means, of course!), and thus, a power imbalance will occur. this will inherently lead to either conflict, or domination by a specific social group.
in a world that is not maintained through a police force by a state that is governed by the people, there is no way to be truly "free". when numerous competing groups arise, that is much, much more restrictive to freedom than when there is an overarching state government that utilizes the will of the entire populace to create one system of order that allows people to operate with freedom in a collective and productive way.
what we're talking about here, basically, is something called the security dilemma. it is one of the major components of the cold war.
and AH! you might say - the cold war was one of stability! The russians and the Americans had nukes, and they didn't use them against one another! This logic, then, can be extended to why guns ought to be unrestricted. But oh hey wait - in reality, the presence of nuclear threat and nuclear deterrence did absolutely nothing - in reality, it actually made conflict more likely to happen at lower levels. i can explain this in more detail if you wish.
i do not attach negative stigma when i speak of the word "anarchy" - a system that is anarchistic - aka, the dismantling of an overhead authority so that the individual may be most "free" does not actually create an authority-less system, and indeed facilitates the formation and perpetuation of structures that impede the freedom of a people through lethal force.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.