Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

THIS IS YOUR DAILY REMINDER THAT TRUMP IS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND HILLARY IS NOT.

Trump can’t claim he’s not under investigation any more. Mueller seeks White House documents related to Trump’s actions as president.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Hello NRAmerica!




How do you like your 33+ dead and maimed, Mr. Death?

CORRECTION: As of 9 PM, 10 dead; 7 injured. Shooter dead. 26 year old male.


 Meanwhile, an a**hole reacts: 


 Oregon Sheriff Handling Massacre Fought the White House on Gun Control After Newtown —

By Becca Andrews | Thu Oct. 1, 2015 6:33 PM EDT Email 13 

As the sheriff in Douglas County, Oregon, John Hanlin was front and center following Thursday's shooting at Umpqua Community College, which left at least 13 dead and 20 wounded. Two years ago, Hanlin was one of hundreds of sheriffs around the country to vow to stand against new gun control legislation. In a January 15, 2013, letter to Vice President Joe Biden, he wrote, "Gun control is NOT the answer to preventing heinous crimes like school shootings."




You're right.

Gun control is obviously NOT the answer.  More guns in the general population, especially allowing mentally ill young men access to those guns, is the way to go. 

More guns for mentally ill people will keep us safe! Go for it. And think about it while your daughters, sons, granddaughters, and grandsons attend our fabulous NRAmerican schools.

We are an egregiously stupid country when it comes to guns.


Boston Globe

 So far this year, there have been at least 294 mass shooting incidents. There have been 274 days. That’s according to the Mass Shooting Tracker. 

The project tracks incidents in which four or more people are shot — but not necessarily killed — in a spree or setting. 

 Of the mass shootings, 84 incidents can be categorized as spree murders, including the shooting Thursday at Umpqua Community College in Oregon that left at least 13 people dead and more injured. Spree murders are defined by the FBI as the murder of two or more people committed without a cooling-off period, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker.

No problem here. This is normal for a country. Mass shootings, carnage, death, maiming. Yay NRAmerica! Second Amendment Rights RUUUUUULE!

click on chart:


37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Before he shot them he said "State Your Religion"
Obama didn't tell you that?

Anonymous said...

F**k the NRA.

Ahab said...

I'm at a loss for words regarding the Oregon shooting. Every time we turn around, there's another mass shooting in this country. It's sick.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anon, what the hell does that have to do with the carnage that happened today? What? Are you part of the problem?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ahab, it is sick. There is no way to reconcile this carnage. When will we Americans get out of our NRA stupor and do something. The facts are that states with stricter gun laws have fewer firearm deaths. FACT. Countries with very strict firearm laws have fewer firearm deaths. What do the stupid 2nd Amendment people not understand about that? We have restrictions on all our Bill of Rights. Why is the 2nd Amendment sacred? Answer? the criminals of the NRA.

Shaw Kenawe said...


The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths
But there’s still little appetite to talk about more restrictions.

Dave Miller said...

Actually Anon, the general media reported that, but no one has sourced it, or verified it. In any event, the person who said he asked that, then said he immediately started randomly shooting, so his question was superfluous, like your attempt to somehow make this about President Obama...

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... I've been thinking on this all day. Short of a 100% elimination of guns, something that is never going to happen here in the US, guns will always be available here.

Look, today if I wanted, and if I had the money and desire, I could amass an arsenal in pretty short order.

I think stronger gun control will help in spontaneous crimes, but in these seemingly planned massacres? Probably not. These folks are seemingly determined to cause great carnage and will do whatever to make it so. How would stronger gun control laws impact that type of mentality?

Even as I say this, I'm all for better registration, background checks, etc, I just can't see it making much difference if someone is bound and determined to be the next Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold...

Steven B. said...

Relax folks - It wasn't a terrorist. Just a troubled white youth. Not something that requires a response because, really, what can we do? God put the 2nd amendment in the bible, and that's the law of the land.

Now, if had been a Muslim we could have droned someone. At least we would have felt like we'd fought back.

skudrunner said...

Susan,

If it was a Muslim or a Jew there would be no press conference.
Russia attacks and civilians are killed, Iran threatens Israel, Lurch has a disaster of a meeting, No press conference.

Granted this is a tragedy but why not enforce the laws that are on the books to stem this violence instead of just blame others.

Don't blame the illegal gun owners in Chicago, NYC and even Boston when they shoot others because it is against the law, blame the NRA.

Rational Nation USA said...

We have so many gun laws, and they vary by state, more gun laws doesn't seem to be the answer. But uniform, common sense laws based on the top 5 states with the lowest firearm deaths makes sense. By uniform I mean across the nation.

We can have access to firearms for lawful purposes and restrictions and laws that change our present national record in the right direction. They need not be mutually exclusive.

But here we are again and my bet is again nothing will be done.

Ducky's here said...

“He appears to be an angry young man who was very filled with hate,” one law enforcement official said.
--- New York Times

-----
... filled with hate and with easy access to guns.

I think of a line from this song that Chris Smither recorded back in '70.

I hate to think it's only just begun

No end in sight.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skud: "Russia attacks and civilians are killed, Iran threatens Israel, Lurch has a disaster of a meeting, No press conference."

Can you explain what foreign policy and wars have to do with this domestic violence tragedy?

Do you even know what you're talking about when you say "enforce the laws that are on the books?" Some states have very few laws controlling the sale of guns or who can buy them. Each state is different. But one thing is factual: States with strict gun laws have fewer gun deaths. Look at the chart in the post. The states with some of the most firearms deaths are in the south, BTW. Your gratuitous slam at New York, Chicago, and Boston shows you have no interest in having a sensible discussion on this matter. You just want to make false accusations and cheap points.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN: "We have so many gun laws, and they vary by state, more gun laws doesn't seem to be the answer."

Please see the chart in this post. In fact, states with strict gun laws (like Massachusetts, Hawaii), DO have fewer firearms deaths. So more laws restricting who can own guns (like background checks so mentally ill young men can't buy guns, for example) would be a start. 90% of the American people support background checks, even the NRA MEMBERSHIP support background checks, but the venal people in Congress were too afraid of the NRA leadership to do the will of the people. How is that doing the will of the people? Instead we have a Congress that caters to the will of the NRA and the gun lobby.

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence

States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

"Comparing the total number of deaths from gun-related incidents recorded in each state to the strictness of each state’s firearms laws reveals that states with stricter gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths. In New York and Connecticut, two states with relatively strict gun laws, around four out of every 100,000 residents were killed by guns in 2013. In Louisiana and Arkansas, where buying a gun is easy for anyone, there were between 19 and 20 gun deaths (per 100,000) that same year, five times the number of killings than states with stricter laws.

States that have “stand your ground” laws offering immunity to people defending themselves with deadly force saw an average of 4.23 out of every 100,000 residents killed in 2013, compared to 3.08 per 100,000 in states without these laws. In states that require background checks for private gun sales, there were an average of around 15 percent fewer gun-related deaths in 2013 than in states that allow private gun sales without background checks. Although federal law requires background checks on all commercial gun sales, approximately 40 percent of gun sales are made from unlicensed sellers, which allows many people with criminal backgrounds to easily acquire guns in states with lax gun laws."


SOURCE

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ducky: “He appears to be an angry young man who was very filled with hate,” one law enforcement official said."
--- New York Times

While the hysterics on the extreme right are looking for "vermin" jihadists under their beds, the real danger to them and their children and grandchildren is the angry young and possibly mentally unstable American male with easy access to guns.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave, see my answer to RN. Stricter gun laws mean fewer gun deaths.

Dave Miller said...

Duck, I'm sure you saw the very hysterics you mentioned on the regular places...

Here's one of my favorites, quoting Bill Whittle... "As Bill Whittle says in so many words… Get rid of the LBJ blacks, the illegals, and our ‘gun violence’ would be so low on the scale as to embarrass even a libtards for bringing it up."

That was mingled in comments saying definitively the shooter asked the Christians to stand up before he shot them, which of course is factually inaccurate but these are people who when presented with facts, dismiss them, saying the general idea is right, even if the facts are wrong.

To the quote, and a typical conservative desire to profile perspective criminals, if we did so, many of the extreme conservative blogs would be bereft of comments as we'd be questioning angry white males all day, everyday, 24/7.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw, I don't doubt we'd see fewer gun deaths with stricter gun control laws... I am just not sure they'd impact events like what happened today...

Dave Miller said...

Okay conservatives... let us on the left agree with you, for the sake of discussion, that greater gun control will not stop, or limit the type of violence we saw today.

What specific solutions do you, as the conservative right, have to address events such as these.

Anonymous said...



How do you explain the numerous shootings on a daily basis in Chicago, a city with strict gun laws?

Shaw Kenawe said...

To answer your question, Anon @2:14AM:

"Conservative Media Link Chicago's Crime Wave To Strong Gun Laws, Ignoring Higher Murder Rates In "Gun-Friendly" Cities

In their coverage of gun violence in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend, conservative media outlets advanced their longstanding narrative that Chicago's strict gun laws are not effective. But that view ignores what's happening in cities that have weak gun laws and astronomical rates of gun violence like New Orleans, as well as cities with strong gun laws and low rates of violence, like New York City."


"Gun violence is the leading factor of Chicago deaths, and the media portrays Chicago as one of the most, if not the most dangerous city in the United States of America, regardless of that information's accuracy.

Despite Chicago's strict gun laws, many arms were trafficked in from surrounding municipalities or stolen from shipments. The New York Times constructed an info-graphic displaying this phenomenon."

Chicago may have strict gun laws, but the surrounding cities and states do not, so it is quite easy to get hold of a gun.


Why conservatives continue to cite Chicago's gun violence and ignore the gun violence in New Orleans, indicates, to me, that people like Anon are more interested in politicizing this tragedy than trying to understand the root of violence.

No one wants to talk about poverty, hopelessness, lack of education, opportunities, and easy availability of firearms, which are all part of the problem. I understand what the motivation is when someone brings up Chicago, Detroit, or any other city where there are large populations of African Americans. That indicates to me they're part of the problem as well.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dave: "Okay conservatives... let us on the left agree with you, for the sake of discussion, that greater gun control will not stop, or limit the type of violence we saw today."

Australia disagrees.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Here's one of my favorites, quoting Bill Whittle... "As Bill Whittle says in so many words… Get rid of the LBJ blacks, the illegals, and our ‘gun violence’ would be so low on the scale as to embarrass even a libtards for bringing it up."

Typical racist swill from extremists. They have no solutions, just fascistic dreams of "getting rid" of Americans. I've read enough of there murderous solutions: get rid of "vermin" Muslims, get rid of illegals and their children who've been here for years and years, now they want to "get rid" of LBJ blacks? Who are LBJ blacks? The African-Americans who gained civil rights after the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts?

Their solution, it seems, would mirror a solution history witnessed in 1930s Germany.

Those who suggest such violence solutions are useless, angry, and ill-informed people.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I've read enough of there murderous solutions..."


THEIR, not there. Not enough coffee.

skudrunner said...

All gun purchaser's must have background checks, Oregon has that law
Ban "assault" rifles, he had three pistols
Lets come up with more laws that will not solve the problem, after all that is what politicians do.

Shaw Kenawe said...

James Fallows at The Atlantic:

There will be more of these; we absolutely know it; we also know that we will not change the circumstances that allow such episodes to recur. I am an optimist about most things, but not about this. Everyone around the world understands this reality too. It is the kind of thing that makes them consider America dangerous, and mad.

Anonymous Reader of TeaPublican Blogs said...

"As Bill Whittle says in so many words… Get rid of the LBJ blacks, the illegals, and our ‘gun violence’ would be so low on the scale as to embarrass even a libtards for bringing it up."

The person who wrote that in one of those extremist racist blogs is aptly named "kid" because his IQ is on the level of a 4-year old.

Shaw Kenawe said...

For skud's elucidation:

The Brady Bill

This is a result of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, (The Brady Bill), which was enacted in 1994. At a minimum, each state requires a firearm background check to include a search of the National Instant Check System (NICS), which identifies anyone barred from owning a gun.

However, states vary widely in their requirements for enforcing the law. Twenty-one states require only the NICS check. In the states of Connecticut, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia both state and federal firearm background checks are required. Residents of Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Missouri are only required to pass a federal firearm background check but they do need a permit. One problem with the law is that only licensed firearms sellers are required to comply with it.

Private sales of guns

Private sellers can easily sell to anyone who wants a gun and no firearm background check is required. The Brady Law was passed to prevent the sale of guns to people who are mentally incompetent to handle firearms, have violent histories, or otherwise might not use guns wisely. It was never intended as a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights. And it has worked, to a degree.

Although a firearm background check helps identify people who are barred from buying firearms, a lot of people are not included due to errors or omissions. The database is only as accurate as the information put in to it and, if the information was entered incorrectly, a name may not show up. A simple spelling or address error may mean that someone who is barred from owning a firearm can get one. But the Bureau of Justice reported that in 2007 over 8.6 billion background checks were done for individuals wanting to purchase a gun or get a concealed carry permit.


Dave Miller said...

Skud, no proposed solutions?

And no, Oregon does not require registration or permits for guns bought at gun shows, between private sellers, or over the net.

Why should we not have have a single federal standard under which all states operate? Even simple registration and enough time to do a good background check?

GOP folks are big to bring up majority opinion when it benefits them, even when they are wrong, but in this issue, the people oppose the NRA and GOO viewpoint. Why are they not trumpeting that?

Ducky's here said...

You noticed that the right wingers were jumping through hoops trying to make prove that the shooter was Muslim and failing that a "libtard", eh Dave.

Anything to avoid dealing with the issue.
Myself, I think it might be easier to make a dent in urban violence with national gun laws dealing with bulk sale and transport. You can't ban guns in urban neighborhoods but you might make them less available.
Gun show laws would also help.

Also keep records of the origins of guns used in crime and shut down the bad actors dealing these in bulk. I believe Ashcroft stopped that collection during his early term as AG.

There are steps that can be taken although I am also pessimistic about stopping acts like Roseberg.

Dave Miller said...

Ducky... seems as if this guy, at least from published reports was both a white supremacist and anti religion, perhaps, anti Christian.

Quite the combination.

I like your bulk sale ideas and maybe if we could close the private sale/gun show registration loophole, that might slow proliferation. How that can be done? I do not know.

Funny how any any move to require more info on voters is seen as reasonable by some and any move to require more info on gun owners is seen as an infringement.

Also funny is how any move to require permits and such to own a gun is seen as reasonable by some and any move to require more ID to vote is seen as disenfranchisement.

We will never, in my opinion, get past these divides.

Sadly...

Rational Nation USA said...

RN USA - But uniform, common sense laws based on the top 5 states with the lowest firearm deaths makes sense. By uniform I mean across the nation.

Guess ya missed this eh Shaw?

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, no I read that. I should have qualified my answer because it was meant for people, like skud, who believe more gun laws are not the answer. Research shows that's not true.

Rational Nation USA said...

Explain again my more is the answer. It seems a replacement of our present patchwork of local and state laws with a single uniform national code (law) based on the top 5 states with the lowest death by firearms per 1,000 makes sense.

The argument against that is states rights and the consternation over a federal firearms registry. Frankly that is BS and law can be written so that the feared mass
confiscation conservative NRA nuts fear would not and could not happen.

Maybe I'm wrong.

In the meantime this will happen again, and again, and again, and.....

Dave Miller said...

Here's the issue RN...

We can't get a national standard for guns anymore than we can get a national ID card for voting. The losers of the Civil War, where they State Right to allow slavery was defeated, somehow seems to be in play here.

Anytime people propose laws on a national scale, southern politicians of all stripes and conservatives, howl that we are denying states rights again.

Well you know what? We are! Federalism won, the south lost. Let's move forward nationally.

Anonymous said...

The 2nd A is a federal right and the guidelines for all States on guns should be federal and the same in every State. That won't happen when we have politically partisan and corrupt Supreme Courts justices.

Rational Nation USA said...

Excellent point Anonymous!