Republican Congressional Baseball Team Shot At

[Dubayoo]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html

 

About the shooter:

 

Mr. Hodgkinson appeared to be have been fervent fan of Senator Bernie Sanders, according to a Facebook page with references to the Vermont senator. A LinkedIn page for James Hodgkinson had a profile photo showing Mr. Sanders’s famous hair and glasses and the words, “The Dawn of a New Democracy.â€

[ComradeMilton]

That's pretty sad. If's how the other half of the US population feels when it happens to us (which is a lot more than it does to the other side)

[Caecus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/us/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html

 

About the shooter:

 

Mr. Hodgkinson appeared to be have been fervent fan of Senator Bernie Sanders, according to a Facebook page with references to the Vermont senator. A LinkedIn page for James Hodgkinson had a profile photo showing Mr. Sanders’s famous hair and glasses and the words, “The Dawn of a New Democracy.â€

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus#Death

 

Violence has no place in democracy. Ask all the other failed republics. 

[ComradeMilton]

Imagine if the crazed shooter couldn't have gotten a gun. Wait, no that's the constructive change, GOP goes with "Prayers to X".

[Placentica]

I'm not voicing any support for this.

But imagine if this guy was trying to kill the British over tax issues.

[Thalmor]

Imagine if the crazed shooter couldn't have gotten a gun. Wait, no that's the constructive change, GOP goes with "Prayers to X".

 

Then he would've done what the Muslims in Europe do and just run over people with a car- killing more people and being harder to stop.

 

Do you know what stopped the crazed gunman? The Congressman's guards who had guns. I also remember a story from Texas is which a wannabee terrorism was going to shoot up a Muhammad drawing contest, but an officer there shot and killed him. Guns save lives.

 

I'm not voicing any support for this.

But imagine if this guy was trying to kill the British over tax issues.

 

Apples to oranges; this was an American targetting another American. Whereas in your scenario, it would've been an American targetting a government member of a foreign, occupational power.

[ComradeMilton]

Then he would've done what the Muslims in Europe do and just run over people with a car- killing more people and being harder to stop. They had at least six months or more of warning that was being a suggested method of attack by ISIS. 

 

Do you know what stopped the crazed gunman? The Congressman's guards who had guns. I also remember a story from Texas is which a wannabee terrorism was going to shoot up a Muhammad drawing contest, but an officer there shot and killed him. Guns save lives. Or they could've just run up and tackled him. I mean if they're really lazy or fat I guess they have to do what they have to do. Guns kill people.

 

[Thalmor]

They had at least six months or more of warning that was being a suggested method of attack by ISIS.

 

I don't know what that has to do with anything. My point was that crazy people will kill regardless of guns and I used the examples in Europe involving vehicles to back up my point (of which I can think of 2 at the top of my head; the one in Nice and the recent one in London). The fact that the authorities had prior warning of just one of the numerous instances of terrorism involving vehicles doesn't really counter my point.

 

Or they could've just run up and tackled him. I mean if they're really lazy or fat I guess they have to do what they have to do. Guns kill people

 

.Here, look at this:

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/IqEuhFZ.jpg

 

 

There's a map of the incidient. As you can tell from the URL, it comes from The Washington Post, so it's pretty legit. I'll post the source for it below.

 

The shooter opened fire behind a fence and in the open. He eventually moved behind a dugout. Assuming this was a dugout made out of clear material, such as fencing, then he would have a clear 360 view, making it so that any attempts at simply charging him suicide. The Capitol Police - the people who would most reasonably rush him - were behind a dugout several, several feet away, so rushing him wouldn't have been feasible. If anybody else was close enough to tackle him, then they would've done so if it really is as simple as you make it out to be. I guess they're just fat/lazy though.

 

Even if you meant ''Or they could've just run up and tackled him" in a general sense, then that's equally asinine. While doing so is very well possible within in 10 feet or so (it's why police are trainied to open fire on anybody within a certain range if they're hostile regardless of if they're armed or not; they could sprint at that distance and tackle the officer), it's extremely risky to try it any other time because a shooter can just vaguely aim for center mass and pop off a shot. While the shooter could very well miss, the odds of getting hit and getting finished off/killed immedately is higher for most people to consider.

 

Charging a shooter just isn't a good option, and the guns used by The Capitol Police saved lives. Suggesting they just rush the attacker is ridiculous.

 

Picture source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/congress-baseball-shooting/?utm_term=.359125ac1049

 

EDIT: Formatting was a bit screwed up initially. It's fixed now.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Thalmor

[ComradeMilton]

The shooter opened fire behind a fence and in the open. He eventually moved behind a dugout. Assuming this was a dugout made out of clear material, such as fencing, then he would have a clear 360 view, making it so that any attempts at simply charging him suicide. The Capitol Police - the people who would most reasonably rush him - were behind a dugout several, several feet away, so rushing him wouldn't have been feasible. If anybody else was close enough to tackle him, then they would've done so if it really is as simple as you make it out to be. I guess they're just fat/lazy though. Agreed.

 

Even if you meant ''Or they could've just run up and tackled him" in a general sense, then that's equally asinine. While doing so is very well possible within in 10 feet or so (it's why police are trainied to open fire on anybody within a certain range if they're hostile regardless of if they're armed or not; they could sprint at that distance and tackle the officer), it's extremely risky to try it any other time because a shooter can just vaguely aim for center mass and pop off a shot. While the shooter could very well miss, the odds of getting hit and getting finished off/killed immedately is higher for most people to consider. Pretty sure that's why they talk about how dangerous their jobs are. Was there a Capitol Police car outside the stadium? Should be able to get to where the shooter is in a car in like, what, thirty seconds? Pop back into the stadium and voila.

 

Charging a shooter just isn't a good option, and the guns used by The Capitol Police saved lives. Suggesting they just rush the attacker is ridiculous. Not really. If they want to keep talking about how dangerous their job is they could offer a demonstration where they're actually in danger, If the shooter didn't have a gun he'd have a harder time doing harm and could've probably just been tazed and handcuffed. Guns cost lives. Without the gun he had, legally or not, he'd've had to get up very close to try anything and would've been much easier to stop.

 

Picture source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/congress-baseball-shooting/?utm_term=.359125ac1049

 

EDIT: Formatting was a bit screwed up initially. It's fixed now.

[Thalmor]

Pretty sure that's why they talk about how dangerous their jobs are. Was there a Capitol Police car outside the stadium? Should be able to get to where the shooter is in a car in like, what, thirty seconds? Pop back into the stadium and voila.

 

I'm unable to follow you. You are aware that as they drive up to the man, he's just going to shoot at them, right? He going to continue to shoot at them as they park, get out, and then charge him. Think it through in the head second-by-second. Do you not see how they would've been shot that way? Do you not see how shitty of a tactic that would've been?

 

 

[ComradeMilton]

https://youtu.be/faj6T7loQHI?t=441

 

Why it's a good thing to keep them alive per the leading commander of Boston Police regarding the marathon bombings.

[Thalmor]

https://youtu.be/faj6T7loQHI?t=441

 

Why it's a good thing to keep them alive per the leading commander of Boston Police regarding the marathon bombings.

 

So what happens when their shitty tactic fails and all the Capitol Police get shot by the gunman at the baseball field because they tried to Zerg Rush him? What happens in any such situation when the initial authorities present fail to tackle the gunman? 

[ComradeMilton]

The other police called continue to arrive. Additionally by diverting the shooter's away from the Congressmen there'd be a better chance at evacuating them, even if just getting them off the field and into a dugout.. If they were there to protect the majority whip as seems to be the case at least one of the cars would be bulletproof. As it is by killing the shooter who knows if he was involved with a terrorist cell or is part of a larger group. By the time he was shot Alexandria's police had already arrived as backup and much more backup was already on the way.

[Woodwall]

The other police called continue to arrive. Additionally by diverting the shooter's away from the Congressmen there'd be a better chance at evacuating them, even if just getting them off the field and into a dugout.. If they were there to protect the majority whip as seems to be the case at least one of the cars would be bulletproof. As it is by killing the shooter who knows if he was involved with a terrorist cell or is part of a larger group. By the time he was shot Alexandria's police had already arrived as backup and much more backup was already on the way.

Or they could..... just shoot him? Why should you risk the life of the officers and of bystanders? All of this your suggesting can't happen in a short period of time and by attempting it your causing more potential casualties. 

[ComradeMilton]

It can and does happen. Per the leader of the hunt for the Marathon Bombers when he ordered his offices to stop shooting at Dzhokar: You don't shoot them so you can find out if this is an isolated thing or part of a larger group of people. Hopping into an armored car to go get the shooter from another position and get his attention off of his other targets would also allow the Congressional group time to take shelter in a dugout. It's perfectly doable and a much better thing to do than just shoot him.

Edited June 17, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Caecus]

Then he would've done what the Muslims in Europe do and just run over people with a car- killing more people and being harder to stop.

 

Do you know what stopped the crazed gunman? The Congressman's guards who had guns. I also remember a story from Texas is which a wannabee terrorism was going to shoot up a Muhammad drawing contest, but an officer there shot and killed him. Guns save lives.

 

 

Apples to oranges; this was an American targetting another American. Whereas in your scenario, it would've been an American targetting a government member of a foreign, occupational power.

 

Lol. Let me break down that logic for you:

 

>Congressman shot by gunman using gun. 

>Gunman was stopped by trained security staff with guns

>Guns save lives, despite your statement A contradicting statement C. 

 

Could the logic of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" logic be applied here? Perhaps it's not the gun that saved lives, it's the quality and kind of person behind the gun that saves lives? Because if an inanimate object has the quality of saving life, it has the possibility of taking it too. In which case, guns DO kill people. 

 

What you really should be arguing for is not more guns, but more people who know how to use guns and use it for the right reasons. 

 

 

 

Also, in all technicality, Americans were subjects of the British crown up until 1776 until a formal declaration of independence was made. And even then, the declaration was made by 120 old, whore-hugging, sweat-drenched, white landed aristocrats that nowhere nearly represented the interests of the people they claimed to represent. And even then, the British crown never formerly recognized the colonies and the people there as independent until after the nearly decade-long war. So is it really apples to oranges? 

[Placentica]

Apples to oranges; this was an American targetting another American. Whereas in your scenario, it would've been an American targetting a government member of a foreign, occupational power.

It was more of a "food for thought" comment.  And I think the example is quite applicable here.  Is it identical?  Of course not, that's why it's an analogy.

 

The irony is what the gun-man did was counterproductive, it gave conservatives something to talk about and it was a distraction from the worsening situation for Trump.  Of course Trump quickly tweets attention back to himself, like clockwork.

 

If the Revolutionary War had not been successful, it would've been hugely counterproductive to getting more tax representation, more freedom, etc.  We'd have been under much harsher rule for a very long time, who knows how world history would've progressed.  We would've been punished no doubt as a country. (maybe part of the reason some were loyalists?)

 

I'm a bit more interested in the fact this guy was misogynist angry woman beater, assaulting his own daughter and yet he wasn't brought up on felony charges which would've removed his right to have a gun.  Clearly he had a lot of hate and shouldn't have been allowed to own semi-automatic guns, let alone any gun.  (I know ZOMG dont' take my guns!!!!!111!!!)

 

I think we/Americans don't do a good job of being empathetic - putting ourselves in other people's shoes, really hearing an opposing perspective.  It's part of the reason there is so much division right now, congress is nearly 50/50 for each party, yet because it's "Republican controlled' there isn't any desire to compromise.  If it were like 80/20, sure push through the 80% viewpoint.  But it's so 50/50 clearly our country values the ideals of both the left and the right vs. one side over the other.

[ComradeMilton]

Aside from Maine Actually it appears a number of states have also closed the loophole. Everywhere else in the US can get firearms without a background check via the gunshow loophole. If this person was determined to get a gun all he'd need to do is find anyone not an FFL dealer and buy one. If the person selling avoids asking about two points it's entirely legal for both parties (though obviously if you're not supposed to have a firearm and do that's a crime, but no one seems to get charged with that often at all.) In 19 states so far you now have to wait a full like 45 seconds for a background check no matter who is selling, FFL or not.

 

Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market". The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".

 

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders and FFLs are not issued to persons that only sell firearms at gun shows.

 

Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over the perceived loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks and record-keeping for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated that there is no loophole, that current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and that no part of the United States Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms types between private citizens.

 

 

[Caecus]

Also, I'm sick of this stupid argument, as well as the stupidity of gun rights defenders. There is only one argument for the right to wield firearms, and it is detailed in the second amendment. Let's take a look, shall we?

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

In the context of 1776, a militia is any white man between the ages of 18 and 45. Because the United States had no standing military at the time, it was up to the volunteers (the people) to defend the land against foreign powers. Not only that, the whole reason the amendment was made in the first place was because it allowed the militia to overthrow the English government. Without guns, there would be no American Revolution. Instead, you'd just have a few dozen more Boston Massacres. Considering the phrase Necessary to a free state is perhaps the most important one here, I'm going to spell this out. If a people has no access to the tools necessary to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical government, then the government has unrestricted power. If another revolution happened tomorrow, despite all the military technology America has, 200,000,000 people aiming to overthrow the government will not be stopped unless the government destroys the country, of which it cannot govern. The whole point of the second amendment was to stop another government that infringed on the freedoms of the people that were detailed in the rest of the constitution. That vision is immortal. The right for the "well regulated militia" to overthrow the tyrannical government "shall not be infringed" because it is "necessary to a free state". Understand now?

 

If anything, the debate should be over what "well regulated" means. Well-regulated could just mean people that aren't crazy and are capable of separating friend or foe in the midst of combat, or it could mean a person with necessary qualifications. Believe what you will.

 

You drunk, son!

 

First, that's the wrong quote. Second, I said nothing about the second amendment. Third, my argument was simply correcting a logical fallacy made by Thalmor. Fourth, the radical Jeffersonian interpretation of the second amendment has been tried and failed at the cost of an entire generation. It's pretty safe to say that despite sectionalism or differing political ideologies, nobody wants that, not even our Dear Leader (and trust me, he's stupid enough to want pretty much everything else). If anything, this entire thread is a discussion about how extreme political ideology destroys the very democracy you claim to protect with guns, guns, guns. 

 

Also, I am extremely familiar with the interpretations of the second amendment. In fact, I would argue that your interpretation sucks nuts for gun rights advocates. Most gun right advocates would point to the 2nd comma and say that the "bear[ing] [of] Arms" would not solely apply to a militia, otherwise there would be no case for private ownership outside of a multi-party, organized militia. Which means that your interpretation is stupid because it is counterproductive to private ownership of firearms. 

 

 

Calling upon the memory of the Gracchi brothers, it's a goddamn miracle that Lincoln and everyone after him held the union together. 

[ComradeMilton]

I would like to interrupt to point out the utter retardation in this statement. "Regular people shouldn't have guns, instead, when a shooter comes along, run up to him and tackle him! Guns kill people, that's why the regular populace of America shouldn't have guns to defend themselves from insane people who would have access to guns anyway!" If regular people don't

have guns it's going to be very challenging for them to shoot at anyone.

 

Besides the fact that the sentence is an oxymoron in and of itself, I would like to point out that the old "run up and tackle the shooter" strategy is one that has been tried and tried again, I'll list some very famous incidents where unarmed people attempted to fight against people with firearms: It works. For example: // https://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=Tklj0zdkglI // https://youtu .be/vNKcKBqt6E8 // https://youtu be/V6MoVPekzpo // 

https://www.youtubecom/watch? v=_FSr45_Ljz4 // https://www.youtube com/watch?v= 88N7Hpb0pw // How many do you want? I can add more tomorrow if you like. You'll need to fix the formatting necessary for including them.

 

Bloody Sunday

Boston Massacre

Anglo-Zulu war

Every single charge into No-Mans Land in World War 1 (because of the bayonet charge, no shots fired)

 

As you can tell, none of these scenarios landed the unarmed in a victorious position. They're also all wars, which are totally different scenarios and basically irrelevant.. The sheer idiocy of your comment needs to go on a signature I think. Guns kill people, the entire reason people should have guns. Not for the sole purpose of killing, but for defending against wackos like this guy. Think what you like. I think you're wrong and if you don't like that, sorry, ignore me or something.

 

 

 

Also, I'm sick of this stupid argument, as well as the stupidity of gun rights defenders. There is only one argument for the right to wield firearms, and it is detailed in the second amendment. Let's take a look, shall we?

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."rs.

In the context of 1776, a militia is any white man between the ages of 18 and 45. The Constitution didn't exist then. Because the United States had no standing military at the time, it was up to the volunteers (the people) to defend the land against foreign powers. Not at all. When the second amendment was added we'd been free of danger from Britain for a number of years. Not only that, the whole reason the amendment was made in the first place was because it allowed the militia to overthrow the English government. Without guns, there would be no American Revolution. Instead, you'd just have a few dozen more Boston Massacres. Considering the phrase Necessary to a free state is perhaps the most important one here, I'm going to spell this out. If a people has no access to the tools necessary to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical government, then the government has unrestricted power. They can't overthrow anything so if that's why the second amendment exists we needn't have it anymore. If another revolution happened tomorrow, despite all the military technology America has, 200,000,000 people aiming to overthrow the government will not be stopped unless the government destroys the country, of which it cannot govern. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about who would be participating in such an event. The whole point of the second amendment was to stop another government that infringed on the freedoms of the people that were detailed in the rest of the constitution. That vision is immortal. The right for the "well regulated militia" to overthrow the tyrannical government "shall not be infringed" because it is "necessary to a free state". Understand now? No. You're wrong. It's definitely not something immortal either. Sorry, it's challenging to accept an opinion on an amendment of the Constitution from someone who appears not to know when ours started.

 

If anything, the debate should be over what "well regulated" means. Well-regulated could just mean people that aren't crazy and are capable of separating friend or foe in the midst of combat, or it could mean a person with necessary qualifications. Believe what you will. Or it could force every gun sale also should include submission of a round fired from that gun to make apprehending that person a good deal easier even if some people attempted to alter the rifling pattern. The amendment also says nothing about a right to gunpowder, primers, brass or bullets. You could argue it wasn't intentionally left out or not, but the point is it's not there. Before you say that's not going to work bear in mind it's already worked in West Germany for decades and performed as I explained earlier.

Edited June 18, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Florida Man]

We should legally strip peoples' weapons from them so people who gain them illegally can massacre the now defenseless law-adherents

[Caecus]

We should legally strip peoples' weapons from them so people who gain them illegally can massacre the now defenseless law-adherents

 

Lol. This statement embodies everything about your name. 

[ComradeMilton]

We should legally strip peoples' weapons from them so people who gain them illegally can massacre the now defenseless law-adherents

Why would others get the guns? When guns are recovered they're either melted or some places just place them in a long pile and drive a tank or some other heavy, tracked thing do so, make sure all of the parts are beyond repair and then dump them. Either way they're not even available for sale or theft.

[Fukataka]

Why would others get the guns? When guns are recovered they're either melted or some places just place them in a long pile and drive a tank or some other heavy, tracked thing do so, make sure all of the parts are beyond repair and then dump them. Either way they're not even available for sale or theft.

You make it sound like all those who dispose of guns are good at their jobs and not paid off or doing a 'favour' for someone. All too often people are corrupt and decide to keep a gun for themselves for their own personal gain. I would not be surprised if a theoretical Australian-style gun ban did happen in the US, as unlikely as it seems, some bad apples decide to keep a few vintage/antique guns for themselves or for sale to people from gun-friendly countries.

[ComradeMilton]

Any examples of this happening in the US? We already do it, afterall.