Massage parlor shooting

[_CY_]

Surprised I could not find a thread on this, if there merge or delete please.

A so called Sex addict shoots and kills 8 people at massage parlors in GA. He killed 8 people, legally bought the gun hours before at a store. Passed a background check. Tell me again how so called universal background checks are going to prevent mass shootings? Most mass shootings the killer did pass the background check. Not all but most.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-...-attacks-not-racially-motivated-sex-addiction

thanks for starting thread. I've posted extensively and first covered
Tuesday at 9:49 PM#7890 as factual news.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm not sure that it's the best idea to telegraph to the left that you can't catch the lunatics with back ground checks.
If you convince them that background checks don't work, they'll want to ban gun sales all together.

Seriously, it makes sense to most people to keep guns away from people who are insane. I won't defend the way that most people think, but that's the way that most people think.

There is a simple solution: Those who have been adjudicated a threat to society, if not executed, belong in prison or an institution until it can be proven in a court of law that they are no longer a threat. For all those not yet adjudicated as such, and for those who fall between the cracks, be prepared to defend yourself from them.

The problem is not guns - or any other weapon. The problem is the conscienceless and criminally insane people, and the government's lack of resolve to keep these people thusly adjudicated locked up when not executed.

If you disarm the people, it will be that much easier for the conscienceless and criminally insane people to ply their trade in an uninhibited fashion, resulting in many more deaths. I don't know about you, but I am much more comfortable being able to bring a gun to any fight for my life involving any weapons used against me up to and including guns - meaning I'm not comfortable bringing anything less than a gun to a gun fight.... not to mention exercising my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody

 

[DavidMcmillan]

That all sounds very logical, but it is not practical. For the most part, these individuals that commit mass shootings, or individual shootings, have very little indications in their past that would rise to the level of "locking them up". We cannot begin incarcerating people who may become violent in the future. However, in most cases, the individuals have exhibited the potential to commit violence. The current background checking system does a poor job of identifying those types of folks, especially the ones with mental issues of a minor, but potentially serious, problem. The guy here in OKC that did a shooting at a local Louie's restaurant a couple of years ago is a good example. He should not have had access to a firearm, but how do we stop that without "infringing" upon his rights? Not everyone should have access to firearms or sharp instruments.

 

[Fade2blue]

Of course race grifter heels up harris is on it.

 

[chuter]

So Harris is black, asian, and a woman; she scores very high on the intersectionality chart.
The oppression she feels must be crushing.

 

[tRidiot]

So Harris is black, asian, and a woman; she scores very high on the intersectionality chart.
The oppression she feels must be crushing.

Could not be truer.

 

[TedKennedy]

Could not be truer.

Not a big fan of Prager U, but this is a great explanation.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

That all sounds very logical, but it is not practical. For the most part, these individuals that commit mass shootings, or individual shootings, have very little indications in their past that would rise to the level of "locking them up". Ergo, as stated, be armed to defend.

We cannot begin incarcerating people who may become violent in the future. Ergo, as stated, be armed to defend.

However, in most cases, the individuals have exhibited the potential to commit violence. The current background checking system does a poor job of identifying those types of folks, especially the ones with mental issues of a minor, but potentially serious, problem. Ergo, as stated, be armed to defend.

The guy here in OKC that did a shooting at a local Louie's restaurant a couple of years ago is a good example. Yes, it was good example of armed people putting a stop to his murderous rampage.

He should not have had access to a firearm, but how do we stop that without "infringing" upon his rights? You stop it by shooting back.

Not everyone should have access to firearms or sharp instruments.While that is true and said people cannot be denied access without adjudication and incarceration, be armed and prepared to defend.

Woody

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Good idea to be armed to defend yourself, however as much as we preach here, the majority of folks will not be armed. Students in school will not be armed. Concert goers in Las Vegas will not be armed. The women in this instance were no armed, and most likely never would be. So the question remains, should everyone be allowed access to firearms?

 

[dlbleak]

The originator of ‘intersectionality’ is from Columbia. Many roads lead to Columbia. Eric holder, RBG, Barack Obama, Cloward/Piven, george stephanopolous, Alan Greenspan and others. It’s a stinkhole