Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Justinontheinternet t1_j6f4vx9 wrote

Reply to comment by 99BottlesOfBass in Holyoke mall shooting by runninginsquare_s

Let’s see if there’s any real world situations where someone who wasn’t carry, happened to be carrying due to constitutional carry. Same situation happened gunman opened fire only this time the outcome was different. A law abiding gun owner put him down because he lives in a state that doesn’t infringe on our constitutional freedoms. Don’t believe me? Here’s the link! https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/18/elisjsha-dicken-identified-as-man-who-killed-greenwood-park-mall-suspsect/65375869007/

Well regulated- It means maintained. Like my balls are well regulated because I wash them everyday. Additionally curbing the 2a due to “public safety” was ruled unconstitutional vis the heller decision. So it would probably help you as a law abiding gun owner to get familiar with SCTOUS and the law of the land. MA could use this advice as well.

“ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

1

99BottlesOfBass t1_j6f9mzc wrote

Wow. While I'm thrilled that you've mastered testicular hygiene, it's a really weird thing to flex on the internet 😆 Do you often talk about your balls with strangers?

Also, as is extremely obvious with the current SCOTUS, they're not exactly an infallible body of infinite wisdom and perfect rulings. So your argument from authority can fuck right off.

I'm aware of cases wherein a lawfully carrying person has stopped a shooter. Big deal. Doesn't mean that regulations such as requiring mental health screening and continuing education/qualification tests are unreasonable. It seems a lot of these shooters have purchased their guns legally, so it seems like a mental health/competency screening program would stop a lot of the shootings without a need for what amounts to vigilante justice.

Notice how I said "a lot of" shootings, and not "all shootings." I include this bit only because I know you're already mentally typing out "BuT iF yOu MaKe GuNs iLLeGaL OnLy CriMiNaLs WiLL gEt ThEm!!!!11!1" Again, I'm aware of this problem. Shootings exist in countries that have much stricter gun laws than the US - but on a scale of one every few years rather than one every day in the US. Ergo, gun regulation prevents most but not all shootings.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting really tired of seeing our flags flying at half mast.

1

Justinontheinternet t1_j6fewdr wrote

Lmao that was genuinely funny. I use the Mr.Miyagi method wax on wax off. I appreciate you not speaking in absolutes. I’m tired of being blamed and treated like a criminal even more having my rights restricted every time some jackass decides to shoot up a mall. I’m tired of those same laws creating gun free zones in which over 77% of these shootings happen. Which create more loss of innocent life. Instead of these law abiding citizens being unable to put shooters down because of the same laws that are supposed to be “saving their lives”. I’m tired of cops being 15mins to an hour away when seconds count. I’m tired of the 911 operators who don’t know how to do their jobs. Most of all I’m tired of politicians restricting our rights in a way that directly leads to more dead innocent civilians under the guise of “the state will keep you safe with these new gun laws”.

I wrote this in another reply so this isn’t quite directed at you. But I’m curious what do you think about the quote below?

“The gun laws you justify have enabled this tragedy to happen. Other more free states this is what happens when a shooter enters the mall. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/18/elisjsha-dicken-identified-as-man-who-killed-greenwood-park-mall-suspsect/65375869007/

Different law different outcomes. Seems like you prefer the shootings in which innocents are robbed of their 2a and thus killed because of it.

Would you trade away your 1st amendment so people didn’t get hurt by words anymore? Because that’s what you’re doing with your 2nd amendment.”

0

99BottlesOfBass t1_j6ft9ic wrote

Love the false equivalency at the end there. Really, words and guns are fundamentally the exact same things, so it makes total sense. If you think about it like a Galaxy Brain.

That's a cool example of a story where someone stopped a shooter with a personal handgun because of lax gun laws. Leaving aside the fact that you completely left out any rebuttal of the idea of mental health screening (which again would mitigate the absolute number of shootings) let's take a look at another, extremely high profile case. Or two.

In Uvalde Texas (Texas is a state with extremely lax gun laws in case you weren't aware) a shooter entered a school and murdered 19 kids and two teachers. He did that despite the fact that there were armed, armored, and highly trained police there within minutes. Then, all 350+ cops (legal gun owners/carriers all) refused to enter to confront one man with a gun in the name of OfFiCeR SaFeTy. Not only that, but those same cops prevented other people, including parents of the kids being killed, from entering the school to confront the shooter with their own personal guns.

Not sure if you're old enough to remember Columbine, in April 1999 - twenty-three years before Uvalde. These two guys (who I pause to editorialize might have been caught beforehand with mental health screening) killed several students. Cops and SWAT (again, all carrying guns) surrounded the school in about fifteen minutes. Despite hearing gunshots continue for another 30 minutes after that, they also thought it was ToO DaNgEroUs aNd ScArY for them with their MP5s and body armor to confront two literal teenagers. They made no effort to enter the school for almost three hours - not even when students sheltering in a classroom taped handmade signs to the windows begging for help for their wounded, bleeding teacher (the teacher died before help arrived)

The cops sat on their tacticool gear for two hours after hearing the last of the gunshots at Columbine. Two fucking hours in their head-to-toe body armor doing fuck all. The reason they didn't hear any more gunshots during those two hours was because the shooters had killed themselves. So the punchline here is cops let people bleed to death and sit in absolutely traumatizing fear for their lives for two fucking hours because they were too scared to confront. And here I remind you that this was twenty four years ago - they haven't improved their tactics in a quarter fucking century.

So why the absolute fuck should citizens be hoping to just happen to be in the presence of someone carrying a gun who might stop the shooter, rather than counting on mental health screening? Especially because those armed citizens often shoot innocent bystanders at the scene of a shooting just because of the chaos of it all.

Don't respond to this comment unless you're going to address the idea of mental health screening. Stop talking about GuN FrEe ZoNeS being the problem because I'm definitely not advocating for that solution, and I thought I made that pretty clear in my very first response to you.

1

Justinontheinternet t1_j6hhaj4 wrote

>"Love the false equivalency at the end there. Really, words and guns are fundamentally the exact same things, so it makes total sense. If you think about it like a Galaxy Brain."

-Interesting showing your bias by comparing two constitutional amendments and you call it false equivalency lol

​

>"That's a cool example of a story where someone stopped a shooter with a personal handgun because of lax gun laws."

- Thanks that state actually follows the SCOTUS Bruen decision and allows people to carry outside of their home unlike MA.

​

>Leaving aside the fact that you completely left out any rebuttal of the idea of mental health screening (which again would mitigate the absolute number of shootings) let's take a look at another, extremely high profile case. Or two."

- Thanks for inserting your opinion here. Do you have any proof that mental health screenings will mitigate the absolute number of shootings? Or this is textbook example of false equivalence?

​

>"In Uvalde Texas (Texas is a state with extremely lax gun laws in case you weren't aware) a shooter entered a school and murdered 19 kids and two teachers. He did that despite the fact that there were armed, armored, and highly trained police there within minutes. Then, all 350+ cops (legal gun owners/carriers all) refused to enter to confront one man with a gun in the name of OfFiCeR SaFeTy. Not only that, but those same cops prevented other people, including parents of the kids being killed, from entering the school to confront the shooter with their own personal guns.
>
>Not sure if you're old enough to remember Columbine, in April 1999 - twenty-three years before Uvalde. These two guys (who I pause to editorialize might have been caught beforehand with mental health screening) killed several students. Cops and SWAT (again, all carrying guns) surrounded the school in about fifteen minutes. Despite hearing gunshots continue for another 30 minutes after that, they also thought it was ToO DaNgEroUs aNd ScArY for them with their MP5s and body armor to confront two literal teenagers. They made no effort to enter the school for almost three hours - not even when students sheltering in a classroom taped handmade signs to the windows begging for help for their wounded, bleeding teacher (the teacher died before help arrived)
>
>The cops sat on their tacticool gear for two hours after hearing the last of the gunshots at Columbine. Two fucking hours in their head-to-toe body armor doing fuck all. The reason they didn't hear any more gunshots during those two hours was because the shooters had killed themselves. So the punchline here is cops let people bleed to death and sit in absolutely traumatizing fear for their lives for two fucking hours because they were too scared to confront. And here I remind you that this was twenty four years ago - they haven't improved their tactics in a quarter fucking century."

-Cool story, please quote where I said this was the most optimal solution and please quote where I mentioned the police at all (beyond generally being a bit too late when shit happens which is understandable they can't be everywhere).

​

>"So why the absolute fuck should citizens be hoping to just happen to be in the presence of someone carrying a gun who might stop the shooter, rather than counting on mental health screening? Especially because those armed citizens often shoot innocent bystanders at the scene of a shooting just because of the chaos of it all."

-Because I just provided you an example of what happens when an armed citizen encounters a mass shooting in a mall. Because Mass isn't compliant with the Bruen decision, citizens in these situations as we've witnessed today, die. Whereas in the example I provided everyone lived. Civilian Competition shooters often out shoot top performing military operators and police officers and even swat members.

You're really set on mental health screening. I don't have to screen you mental health because of the stupid shit you're saying right here but you're still allowed to exercise your 1st amendment right. Why should the 2nd amendment be any different? They are both amendments.

Regarding your mental health boner, I must say I agree to an extent. I feel healthcare in America has inflated costs with pretty shitty patient care. I feel like more gun owners would go for mental health screenings just on their own but due to new red flag laws if you seek help your guns can be taken away from you and you have to go to a judge and ask for them back who can hold them for years. So if I were to satisfy your mental health requirement I would agree with you and say mental illness is rife in America and frankly there should be no stigma, rights removed, or fiscal block to seek these services.

​

>"Don't respond to this comment unless you're going to address the idea of mental health screening. Stop talking about GuN FrEe ZoNeS being the problem because I'm definitely not advocating for that solution, and I thought I made that pretty clear in my very first response to you."

I addressed it for you, hope that leaves you satisfied my man.

0