Report: Shooter opens fire on GOP congressmen at baseball practice
247 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Popularvote;52360368]mcharest, the difference is that Obama never really used such divisive rhetoric, while Trump has done nithing but that.[/QUOTE]
A brief list of Trump's statements:
"I'll beat the crap out of you."
"Part of the problem ... is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore."
"The audience hit back. That's what we need a little bit more of."
"In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."
"Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."
"I'd like to punch him in the face."
"Knock the crap out of them."
"Maybe he should have been roughed up."
"I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will."
“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
[media]https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/875162665529769985[/media]
Stay with your country, Congressman.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52361304]I don't really get this argument that it's "not worth bothering with gun control because criminals would just get guns anyway". What if we applied that to other laws? Should we not bother with laws against drunk driving? I mean alcohol is [B]everywhere[/B] and drunk driving is just bound to happen, so why bother. Murder! Homicides happen all the time, criminals would do it anyway so why bother trying to enforce anything. You get the idea.
This is probably a really unpopular position around here right now but I don't think gun control is the impossibility that everyone says it is. To my knowledge, America isn't that different when it comes to guns, except for a small minority. Most people own one or two guns but there is a niche of gun owners who own way way more. I feel like this small minority rules the NRA and has a undue effect on public policy because of that.
I also think too often gun control is framed as a "take away my guns" and it should not be that. Last I checked most Americans supported things like ending private gun show loopholes and limiting magazine sizes. And since guns aren't going anywhere, there should perhaps be a federal standardization of concealed carry permits, so no matter what state that you hail from, you should be informed how to use your gun. Everyone cites the assault weapon ban that Clinton signed as a prime example of gun control but the conversation can and should be broader than just banning things.[/QUOTE]
What, the AWB was hot garbage and did fuck all.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52361398]What, the AWB was hot garbage and did fuck all.[/QUOTE]
Okay? Not disagreeing with you.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52361304]I don't really get this argument that it's "not worth bothering with gun control because criminals would just get guns anyway". What if we applied that to other laws? Should we not bother with laws against drunk driving? I mean alcohol is [B]everywhere[/B] and drunk driving is just bound to happen, so why bother. Murder! Homicides happen all the time, criminals would do it anyway so why bother trying to enforce anything. You get the idea.
This is probably a really unpopular position around here right now but I don't think gun control is the impossibility that everyone says it is. To my knowledge, America isn't that different when it comes to guns, except for a small minority. Most people own one or two guns but there is a niche of gun owners who own way way more. I feel like this small minority rules the NRA and has a undue effect on public policy because of that.
I also think too often gun control is framed as a "take away my guns" and it should not be that. Last I checked most Americans supported things like ending private gun show loopholes and limiting magazine sizes. And since guns aren't going anywhere, there should perhaps be a federal standardization of concealed carry permits, so no matter what state that you hail from, you should be informed how to use your gun. Everyone cites the assault weapon ban that Clinton signed as a prime example of gun control but the conversation can and should be broader than just banning things.[/QUOTE]
Killing someone with a gun is already illegal, just like drunk driving and murder.
Welp, now People I usually follow on the right, that I thought were sane, now have come to the conclusion that all of the Left want them dead, and that Obama also talked about using violence. And that Lorreta Lynch and Tim Kaine wanted blood on the streets (DEBUNKED by [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/15/fact-check-did-tim-kaine-and-loretta-lynch-call-for-blood-and-death-in-the-streets/"]The Daily Caller(!)[/URL])
[QUOTE=geel9;52361863]Killing someone with a gun is already illegal, just like drunk driving and murder.[/QUOTE]
Yeah of course they're all illegal, because why wouldn't they be? Yet why do people argue that gun control is not worth doing because criminals will get access to them anyway?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52367944]Yeah of course they're all illegal, because why wouldn't they be? Yet why do people argue that gun control is not worth doing because criminals will get access to them anyway?[/QUOTE]
Because we don't ban cars because people drive drunk, or go plowing into crowds with them. We could all get into this same old song and dance, but there's no point.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52367989]Because we don't ban cars because people drive drunk, or go plowing into crowds with them. We could all get into this same old song and dance, but there's no point.[/QUOTE]
But I'm not asking to ban cars am I? Heck I think preventing people from driving drunk is a form of Car Control in itself.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52368029]But I'm not asking to ban cars am I? Heck I think preventing people from driving drunk is a form of Car Control in itself.[/QUOTE]
So wouldn't banning murder be a form of gun control? I think you fail to see the parallels here.
We don't ban cars because people run over people and drive drunk, so why should we ban guns when something like this happens? It's all emotional appeal.
"Oh, we need another AWB!" -Hypothetical person for gun control
"Sure, let's ban Porches, Ferraris, Teslas, and all other fast/sports cars. You only need to go 70 at most" -Not a gun control person
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52368047]So wouldn't banning murder be a form of gun control? I think you fail to see the parallels here.
We don't ban cars because people run over people and drive drunk, so why should we ban guns when something like this happens? It's all emotional appeal.
"Oh, we need another AWB!" -Hypothetical person for gun control
"Sure, let's ban Porches, Ferraris, Teslas, and all other fast/sports cars. You only need to go 70 at most" -Not a gun control person[/QUOTE]
If you read my post earlier I'm not advocating for a gun ban at all.
I also complained earlier that gun control is always framed as banning guns, so thanks for proving my point.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52368062]If you read my post earlier I'm not advocating for a gun ban at all.
I also complained earlier that gun control is always framed as banning guns, so thanks for proving my point.[/QUOTE]
If this is the post you are referring to:
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52361304]I don't really get this argument that it's "not worth bothering with gun control because criminals would just get guns anyway". What if we applied that to other laws? Should we not bother with laws against drunk driving? I mean alcohol is [B]everywhere[/B] and drunk driving is just bound to happen, so why bother. Murder! Homicides happen all the time, criminals would do it anyway so why bother trying to enforce anything. You get the idea.
This is probably a really unpopular position around here right now but I don't think gun control is the impossibility that everyone says it is. To my knowledge, America isn't that different when it comes to guns, except for a small minority. Most people own one or two guns but there is a niche of gun owners who own way way more. I feel like this small minority rules the NRA and has a undue effect on public policy because of that.
I also think too often gun control is framed as a "take away my guns" and it should not be that. Last I checked most Americans supported things like ending private gun show loopholes and limiting magazine sizes. And since guns aren't going anywhere, there should perhaps be a federal standardization of concealed carry permits, so no matter what state that you hail from, you should be informed how to use your gun. Everyone cites the assault weapon ban that Clinton signed as a prime example of gun control but the conversation can and should be broader than just banning things.[/QUOTE]
...then yes, I did read it. It makes you sound grossly uninformed on the subject, and your suggestions on gun control are that of what a generic argument for gun control would consist of.
I may have said "should we ban guns when something like this happens", and that may have been better phrased as "gun control" than "ban guns". But either way, the point still stands.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52360929]I don't understand the argument that Scalise had it coming thanks to the healthcare bill he wants to pass. Shooting him doesn't invalidate the bill and it probably strengthens it.[/QUOTE]
They want to repeal Obamacare, a move which would cost 23 million Americans (including millions of children) their coverage according to the [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/cbo-congressional-budget-office-health-care.html?_r=0]Congressional Budget Office[/url]. Approximately 36,000 people would die every single year as a result of them repealing it (according to a study by the [url=https://thinkprogress.org/heres-how-many-people-could-die-every-year-if-obamacare-is-repealed-ae4bf3e100a2]Urban Institute[/url]), and they haven't got anything proper to replace it with. By comparison, about 45,000 people were dying every year before we had Obamacare to expand protection and coverage ([url=http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/]from Harvard[/url]).
Why is it difficult to understand their motivation? Also, how does him getting shot strengthen the validity of their side?
I never claimed I was all that informed about guns, I simply think there can be a middle ground between where we are now and banning all guns.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52368062]If you read my post earlier I'm not advocating for a gun ban at all.
I also complained earlier that gun control is always framed as banning guns, so thanks for proving my point.[/QUOTE]
You're assuming """"""common sense gun laws""""" would stop at magazine capacity limits (literally unenforceable at this point and are illogical anyways) and closing the "gun show loophole" (which is a buzzword that means nothing) antis spout do I'm not even gonna address that.) Would be where it stops.
It wouldn't be. There will always be more people bawling about the children who want CC abolished, semi auto bans, etc. And would continue to push for them.
That's why anyone who really gives a darn about guns opposes gun control. We've compromised in the past and it got us no where. Why would now be any different?
[QUOTE=Govna;52368149]They want to repeal Obamacare, a move which would cost 23 million Americans (including millions of children) their coverage according to the [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/cbo-congressional-budget-office-health-care.html?_r=0]Congressional Budget Office[/url]. Approximately 36,000 people would die every single year as a result of them repealing it (according to a study by the [url=https://thinkprogress.org/heres-how-many-people-could-die-every-year-if-obamacare-is-repealed-ae4bf3e100a2]Urban Institute[/url]), and they haven't got anything proper to replace it with. By comparison, about 45,000 people were dying every year before we had Obamacare to expand protection and coverage ([url=http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/]from Harvard[/url]).
Why is it difficult to understand their motivation? Also, how does him getting shot strengthen the validity of their side?[/QUOTE]
Scalise being killed wouldn't invalidate the bill, it would still exist. Now that he's been shot, people will rally around him and the bill he wanted to pass.
Someone isn't helping
[URL="http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2017/06/democratic_strategist_defends_hunt_republicans_twe.html"]http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2017/06/democratic_strategist_defends_hunt_republicans_twe.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]RAHWAY -- A Democratic strategist from Union County is defending his use of the hashtags #HuntRepublicanCongressman and #HuntRepublicans, saying they are meant to be a metaphor about "hunting" Republicans out of Congress and not an endorsement of Wednesday's attack on the Republican congressional baseball team.
Jim Devine, a longtime Democratic strategist who has worked on both local and presidential campaigns and once ran for mayor of Rahway, said he would never condone violence and called the shooting "a terrible tragedy."
"I'm not advocating violence, but I'm saying I understand it," Devine said in a phone interview. "I can recognize why it's happened, because this is the predictable and preventable outcome of 40 years of increasingly vitriolic, violent, corrupt and corporate-controlled rhetoric. This is the chickens coming home to roost."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52368212]Scalise being killed wouldn't invalidate the bill, it would still exist. Now that he's been shot, people will rally around him and the bill he wanted to pass.[/QUOTE]
The AHCA remains an unpopular bill, and Scalise doesn't have droves of people rushing around to support him either. So you're wrong on both of those assertions already.
[QUOTE=Chonch;52361382][media]https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/875162665529769985[/media]
Stay with your country, Congressman.[/QUOTE]
That's a LOT of fucking damage for a single bulletwound to the hip, jesus.
[QUOTE=Govna;52368373]The AHCA remains an unpopular bill, and Scalise doesn't have droves of people rushing around to support him either. So you're wrong on both of those assertions already.[/QUOTE]
ok so explain to me how the AHCA will magically disappear if Scalise was killed
[quote=Lambeth;52361304]I feel like this small minority rules the NRA and has a undue effect on public policy because of that.[/quote]
Super fast history lesson: The NRA was a pretty 'middle-of-the-road' group back in the 40s through the 60s, working closely with government and public entities and having a wide spectrum of political beliefs. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a racially-motivated response to the threat of the Black Panthers and other militant black activist groups, and despite being initially supported by the NRA, gun advocates started to turn against them when they started to feel the effects of the Act. Further gun control acts (eg Hughes Amendment), generally receiving a fairly tepid response from the NRA, continued to alienate the base, until the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (supported by the NRA) was overwhelmingly unpopular.
After the AWB passed, NRA members ousted their leadership, completely recharacterized the organization, dug their heels in the sand, and said 'enough is enough'. So if you ever feel like the NRA is this minority organization that wields undue power and opposes any reasonable compromise, just be aware that 1. this leadership direction represents the collective will of American gun owners, and 2. they got to be this opposed to any 'reasonable' compromise because no 'reasonable' compromise over the last century has ever been enough for gun control advocates.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52361304]Last I checked most Americans supported things like ending private gun show loopholes and limiting magazine sizes.[/quote]
Sure, when you ask with those soundbites your average uninformed American hears the buzzwords and probably agrees. When you explain the 'gun show loophole' as 'you're not allowed to inherit your father's gun, you have to go find a gun store to do a transfer and run a background check' then a lot fewer people agree.
And when you ask law enforcement and military professionals who shoot for a living what the efficacy of magazine capacity limits are, they probably say 'very little'- the Virginia Tech shooter had only 'low-capacity' magazines, the San Bernadino shooters lived in a state where 'high-capacity' magazines are illegal, and the shooter this thread is about had an SKS which is a 10rd non-detachable magazine.
Both the gun show loophole and magazine sizes are ineffectual scapegoats for deeper-running issues, that even their proponents acknowledge are primarily intended as symbolic measures, IE stepping-stones to further restrictions. Hence the opposition.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52361304]but the conversation can and should be broader than just banning things. [/quote]
I agree. Lots of gun owners agree. I totally agree with you on having federal reciprocity for CC permits, but at the same time I'm confused because you just gave two recommendations focused on banning things.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;52368434]ok so explain to me how the AHCA will magically disappear if Scalise was killed[/QUOTE]
Explain to me where I said it was ever going to "magically disappear". It was never going to, regardless of whether or not this shooting ever happened. It will either be passed and signed into law, or it won't.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52368477]Maybe he isnt arguing it is a smart and effective action, but he is talking about the motivation?[/QUOTE]
They found a list on the shooter, after the massacre there was three other ones he was going to target.
[media]https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/875846701533233158[/media]
Anonymous sources though.
[media]https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/876197473001320449[/media]
Update as of 6/17
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52368158]I never claimed I was all that informed about guns, I simply think there can be a middle ground between where we are now and banning all guns.[/QUOTE]
We are already in the middle ground. The state of our gun laws right now is the result of a century of feelgood knee jerk laws and arbitrations which do nothing but make it harder to own them legally and have made gun owners (rightly) resistant to additional regulations, even ones that actually make sense.
Gun owners dislike gun crime as much or even more than you do, believe me, and we'd love to compromise to help find solutions to these problems, but a compromise means ground is given on both sides. Help us improve the shooting hobby by removing old kneejerk restrictions like silencers or even full-auto. Feature/accessory bans are worthless and easy to circumvent. Give us national conceal-carry permits. Remove arbitrary bans on ~scary assault weapons~ like the Street Sweeper and make it illegal to create new bans of that type. That's the way to earn trust back from gun owners and get us to cooperate with passing sensible regulations. Adding more bullshit to the growing pile of manure that is gun regulations is only going to cause gun owners to dig their heels in deeper.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;52368408]That's a LOT of fucking damage for a single bulletwound to the hip, jesus.[/QUOTE]
There's a lot of stuff going on in the pelvis, and it's all very delicately structured, especially in the body of a sedentary 50-something-year-old man.
