Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

This attitude sums it up perfectly.  He can't comprehend someone caring about something or someone other than themselves. 

 

I don't have guns, but I respect the rights of people that do have guns. You don't have guns, so you care nothing about the rights of the people that do have guns. 

 

Typical

 

 

So you just paying lip service with no bone in the fight. Have respect for those families that have their love ones taken away by your typical rightist attitude. 

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, Phoenix Rising said:

All the more reason to limit Americans' access to guns then.

So does that mean we put all American's in prison because As of 2016, 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the United States, at a rate of 698 people per 100,000. Total US incarceration peaked in 2008. Total correctional population (prison, jail, probation, parole) peaked in 2007. In 2008 the US had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners.

Does it mean that we prohibit alcohol because some abuse it Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day. These deaths shorten the lives of those who die by an average of almost 29 years, for a total of 2.8 million years of potential life lost.

Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day. These deaths shorten the lives of those who die by an average of almost 29 years, for a total of 2.8 million years of potential life lost.

Or do those lives not count because they were not killed with a gun?  I guess in your mind. getting killed by a drunk driver is a less egregious death than one by a gun. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html#:~:text=Excessive alcohol use is responsible,years of potential life lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#:~:text=As of 2016%2C 2.3 million,the world's 9.8 million prisoners.
 

 

[Surelynot]

Just now, Thomas J said:

I guess in your mind. getting killed by a drunk driver is a less egregious death than one by a gun. 

Absolutely not....should be treated as murder/unintentional homicide whatever........but that is nothing to with the topic of gun related deaths......nothing!

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Absolutely not....should be treated as murder/unintentional homicide whatever........but that is nothing to with the topic of gun related deaths......nothing!

No but the premise does.  It is punishing the innocent for the crimes and actions of the guilty.  It was suggested that the lack of American's higher level of disregard for the law was the premise for confiscatory gun policy.  If you embark down that path, I rightfully pointed out the same would apply to other situations as well.  As to unintentional homicide, negligent homicide, or wanton disregard for human life.  All of those would apply to someone who knowingly drives and kills another person while driving a vehicle.  The punishment is to THE PERSON and not the alcohol. 

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

It is punishing the innocent for the crimes and actions of the guilty

You could apply that to so many things.........innocent people might inconvenienced (hardly punished) for the good of society in general.......no great shakes........no guns.....problem solved.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No but the premise does.  It is punishing the innocent for the crimes and actions of the guilty.  It was suggested that the lack of American's higher level of disregard for the law was the premise for confiscatory gun policy.  If you embark down that path, I rightfully pointed out the same would apply to other situations as well.  As to unintentional homicide, negligent homicide, or wanton disregard for human life.  All of those would apply to someone who knowingly drives and kills another person while driving a vehicle.  The punishment is to THE PERSON and not the alcohol. 

Why do you think there are speed limits.

[Sujo]

And these morons dont help.

 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/americas-broken-gun-culture-doesnt-just-tolerate-deadly-weapons-it-celebrates-them/news-story/61b9f744deee7e0853d65d3d4967fd45

[polpott]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Do you understand the way the court is supposed to work in the US? If the judge believes what is brought before him violates a higher law, it their responsibility to dismiss it. Judges are not supposed to decide what should and should not be the law, it is there job to interpret it as it is written. 

 

Did you read from your link: "The city council should have listened to the city attorney. His repeated attempts to warn them that they did not have the authority to pass these ordinances were cited throughout the opinion. The opinion is also very thoroughly and thoughtfully written, which will make it even harder to overturn, should the city appeal it."

 

So apparently it was just a city council wasting time and money trying to make the news and look like the are doing something. 

 

 

 

So did you not understand my statement that someone needs to file a complaint for the charge to be heard? In this case, NRA brought the complaint to court.

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

And these morons dont help.

 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/americas-broken-gun-culture-doesnt-just-tolerate-deadly-weapons-it-celebrates-them/news-story/61b9f744deee7e0853d65d3d4967fd45

They almost make me want to have a gun!!!!!!

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You keep telling that lie over and over. The only people that believe it are already on your side. 

Alright then, since you think plinking and varmint shooting are so important, how's this:

 

An assault rifle is a high capacity weapon firing a round designed for combat use that has no legitimate civilian use other than trivial uses that can be better performed by other common guns.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You are lying again. If you expect to have any credibility you need to start being truthful.  Wikipedia had the same error as the the site you linked to, and I told you it did in response to YOUR post when I said:

 

I used Wikipedia, and it matched your source .

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

 

You are deflecting. I said noting of gun laws, I was talking about gun homicides rates compared to gun ownership rates.  What I said was: 

 

New Jersey is interesting, their firearm ownership ship rates are about a forth of the ownership rate in Idaho, yet their firearm homicide rate is double. 

 

Washington DC's gun ownership rate is less than half that of Idaho, yet the gun homicide rate is twelve times as high. 

 

Sure, you can find states with low ownership rates and low homicide rates, and states with high ownership rates and high homicide rates, but that is certainly not the rule. California has a much lower ownership rate than Texas, yet their gun homicide rates are the same.

 

Remember now? 

 

 

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

 

The link I identified as having a discrepancy between its text and table was this one:   https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state

 

I did not catch the error in the Wikipedia table. 

 

Your post that I originally replied to was the one where you stated:

 

"Okay, Hawaii has a much higher gun ownership rate, yet a much lower gun homicide rate. "  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1210952-shooting-erupts-at colorado supermarket-bloodied-man-shown-in-handcuffs/page/9/#elControls_16341202_menu

 

My reply was appropriate for you claim.  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1210952-shooting-erupts-at colorado supermarket-bloodied-man-shown-in-handcuffs/page/10/#elControls_16341686_menu

 

BTW, you didn't use Wikipedia in the post I replied to, you didn't use any source.  At a later post of yours I pointed out that you were using apples to oranges comparisons of gun violence in urban and rural areas.  I don't recall if you referenced any sources there.

 

 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

So does that mean we put all American's in prison because As of 2016, 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the United States, at a rate of 698 people per 100,000. Total US incarceration peaked in 2008. Total correctional population (prison, jail, probation, parole) peaked in 2007. In 2008 the US had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners.

Does it mean that we prohibit alcohol because some abuse it Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day. These deaths shorten the lives of those who die by an average of almost 29 years, for a total of 2.8 million years of potential life lost.

Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day. These deaths shorten the lives of those who die by an average of almost 29 years, for a total of 2.8 million years of potential life lost.

Or do those lives not count because they were not killed with a gun?  I guess in your mind. getting killed by a drunk driver is a less egregious death than one by a gun. 
 

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html#:~:text=Excessive alcohol use is responsible,years of potential life lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#:~:text=As of 2016%2C 2.3 million,the world's 9.8 million prisoners.
 

 

I get it. You prefer more guns because its working so well.

[Yellowtail]

40 minutes ago, polpott said:

So did you not understand my statement that someone needs to file a complaint for the charge to be heard? In this case, NRA brought the complaint to court.

 

I understand that completely. 

 

Your position seems to be that the laws you agree with should be obeyed, while the rules you disagree with should be disregarded. 

 

Had they not brought the suit, there would be a hundred city councils making similar rules until some of them started making rules that you don't like and then you'd start howling. 

 

The Times does a poll and calls 1,000 people and askes them if they support common sense gun laws, and most everyone says yes, because most everyone does. No need for self seeking politicians to start making rules they have no authority to make. If so many people support it, why put it on a ballot?

 

What if the city council made a rule that no one in the county was allowed to drink on Sunday?

[Sujo]

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I understand that completely. 

 

Your position seems to be that the laws you agree with should be obeyed, while the rules you disagree with should be disregarded. 

 

Had they not brought the suit, there would be a hundred city councils making similar rules until some of them started making rules that you don't like and then you'd start howling. 

 

The Times does a poll and calls 1,000 people and askes them if they support common sense gun laws, and most everyone says yes, because most everyone does. No need for self seeking politicians to start making rules they have no authority to make. If so many people support it, why put it on a ballot?

 

What if the city council made a rule that no one in the county was allowed to drink on Sunday?

Its very simple.

Do you like what is happening.

If yes, do nothing.

If no, do something about it.

 

Something needs to be done, anything. If you are against anything being done then you are ok with mass murderers and all other gun related crimes.

 

Stop looking for excuses and look for remedies. One bit at a time.

 

Australia remembers its mass murderer. US remembers if there is a day without one.

[Yellowtail]

48 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Alright then, since you think plinking and varmint shooting are so important, how's this:

 

An assault rifle is a high capacity weapon firing a round designed for combat use that has no legitimate civilian use other than trivial uses that can be better performed by other common guns.

 

I don't think plinking and varmint shooting are any more important than golfing, fishing or tennis. Now you can argue no one is killed with a tennis racket and then I can find someone that has.

 

I think it safe to assume anything you do not participate you consider trivial. Not my thing, but it is a big deal to a lot of families. I have a few friends that enjoy shooting and I occasionally go the the range with them when I'm in the US. It's really no different than playing darts or pool.

 

I would not object to banning the sale of thirty round clips if the suppliers and manufactures were treated fairly. But again, I do not see how this will result in any significant saving of lives. The ONLY way you say that it will is to say that if it saves even one life it will be worth it. That is the only argument, and you will only make that argument for things you don't like. For things you do like, the loss of lives is acceptable, it's just the price we pay. 

 

If I believed for a moment, that the banning and confiscation all  firearms and ammo that meet the criterial you have outlined would reduce gun related deaths by 10% I would absolutely support it.

[Sujo]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I don't think plinking and varmint shooting are any more important than golfing, fishing or tennis. Now you can argue no one is killed with a tennis racket and then I can find someone that has.

 

I think it safe to assume anything you do not participate you consider trivial. Not my thing, but it is a big deal to a lot of families. I have a few friends that enjoy shooting and I occasionally go the the range with them when I'm in the US. It's really no different than playing darts or pool.

 

I would not object to banning the sale of thirty round clips if the suppliers and manufactures were treated fairly. But again, I do not see how this will result in any significant saving of lives. The ONLY way you say that it will is to say that if it saves even one life it will be worth it. That is the only argument, and you will only make that argument for things you don't like. For things you do like, the loss of lives is acceptable, it's just the price we pay. 

 

If I believed for a moment, that the banning and confiscation all  firearms and ammo that meet the criterial you have outlined would reduce gun related deaths by 10% I would absolutely support it.

More deflection.

When people commit mass murder with tennis rackets on a scale like guns then get back to me.

 

Bats and knives and cars etc have an everyday use. Guns do not.

 

You just will not support anything to try reduce people getting guns that shouldnt.

 

Own it.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Sujo

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I don't think plinking and varmint shooting are any more important than golfing, fishing or tennis. Now you can argue no one is killed with a tennis racket and then I can find someone that has.

 

I think it safe to assume anything you do not participate you consider trivial. Not my thing, but it is a big deal to a lot of families. I have a few friends that enjoy shooting and I occasionally go the the range with them when I'm in the US. It's really no different than playing darts or pool.

 

I would not object to banning the sale of thirty round clips if the suppliers and manufactures were treated fairly. But again, I do not see how this will result in any significant saving of lives. The ONLY way you say that it will is to say that if it saves even one life it will be worth it. That is the only argument, and you will only make that argument for things you don't like. For things you do like, the loss of lives is acceptable, it's just the price we pay. 

 

If I believed for a moment, that the banning and confiscation all  firearms and ammo that meet the criterial you have outlined would reduce gun related deaths by 10% I would absolutely support it.

Once again, plinking and target shooting and varmint hunting do not require an assault rifle.  These seem to be the only legitimate purposes you can find for assault rifles, and there are better guns for these purposes.

 

I'm sure some people would enjoy using a flame thrower, and they could probably think of 'legitimate uses', such as clearing brush and rodent infestations.  However that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make flame throwers legal and available to the general public, does it?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The link I identified as having a discrepancy between its text and table was this one:   https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state

 

I did not catch the error in the Wikipedia table. 

 

Your post that I originally replied to was the one where you stated:

 

"Okay, Hawaii has a much higher gun ownership rate, yet a much lower gun homicide rate. "  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1210952-shooting-erupts-at colorado supermarket-bloodied-man-shown-in-handcuffs/page/9/#elControls_16341202_menu

 

My reply was appropriate for you claim.  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1210952-shooting-erupts-at colorado supermarket-bloodied-man-shown-in-handcuffs/page/10/#elControls_16341686_menu

 

BTW, you didn't use Wikipedia in the post I replied to, you didn't use any source.  At a later post of yours I pointed out that you were using apples to oranges comparisons of gun violence in urban and rural areas.  I don't recall if you referenced any sources there.

 

Your response was to say I had not credibility, and claimed the source you linked to proved me wrong. It did not. The data table you linked to matched the Wiki data table where I originally go the data. 

 

I used the data from Wiki to make the statement, but did not link to it. I subsequently agreed with you that both your source and wiki were wrong, and I apologize. I then made the same comparison using different states with similar results and you ignored it. 

 

My only point was that there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates.

 

Why should the gun homicide rate be any higher in urban (blue) areas that rural (red) areas? Why is that apples and oranges? If anything it should be lower.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, plinking and target shooting and varmint hunting do not require an assault rifle.  These seem to be the only legitimate purposes you can find for assault rifles, and there are better guns for these purposes.

 

I'm sure some people would enjoy using a flame thrower, and they could probably think of 'legitimate uses', such as clearing brush and rodent infestations.  However that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make flame throwers legal and available to the general public, does it?

Bazookas and tanks. Let everyone have them. They would do whats needed. Sarcasm alert.

 

And you have reasonable restrictions opposed. Repubs are seriously demented.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-says-biden-is-prepared-to-issue-executive-orders-on-guns-180754699.html

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

More deflection.

When people commit mass murder with tennis rackets on a scale like guns then get back to me.

 

Bats and knives and cars etc have an everyday use. Guns do not.

 

You just will not support anything to try reduce people getting guns that shouldnt.

 

Own it.

 

Told ya

[pacovl46]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

You miss my point:  In most of the US there is no need to obtain a 'black market" gun because guns are ridiculously easy to obtain legally, even by those who should not have one.  Private sales with no paperwork and involving nothing but an exchange of cash for weapon are common.

No, it’s you who’s missing my point, that’s a good thing, though, by the way, because you don’t think like a criminal. So, let me lay it out for you. If you were a member of a gang you sure as hell wouldn’t use a legally bought gun to do your drive-by because that gun could be traced back to you, if the cops get their hands on it or if you were to use the same gun for multiple crimes and they cops could catch you with the gun and get their hands on the bullets fired from your gun during said crimes. That’s why the shooters with brain use a gun only once and then throw it away and get another one, which they buy on the black market. Again, private sales and stolen guns don’t cover the demand of the criminal world. Trust me, there is a massive black market for guns in the US! 

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, jvs said:

So who is doing the shooting?

JVS  

I guess it depends on what you consider a "shooting"  62% of all deaths by Firearm are a suicide. 3% are accidental and 35% are homicides.  The homicide figure includes both justifiable homicides by police and civilians as well as true killings.  Of those the vast majority of deaths occur from handguns  As you can see from the attached, more people are killed using knives, other weapons, blunt objects like hammers and fists and feet than rifles.  

So does that mean you "regulate hammers" or have a limited size to knives as well.   Again, to beat a dead horse, focusing on the weapon used and not focusing on how to identify and take action against those who is bent on doing harm is a fools journey.  At best it will force those who wish to do harm to others to choose a different instrument of death. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

 

[Sujo]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

Told ya

Told me what? That guns are the reason for more mass murders than tennis rackets?

 

Doesnt take an einstein to work that out.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

No, it’s you who’s missing my point, that’s a good thing, though, by the way, because you don’t think like a criminal. So, let me lay it out for you. If you were a member of a gang you sure as hell wouldn’t use a legally bought gun to do your drive-by because that gun could be traced back to you, if the cops get their hands on it or if you were to use the same gun for multiple crimes and they cops could catch you with the gun and get their hands on the bullets fired from your gun during said crimes. That’s why the shooters with brain use a gun only once and then throw it away and get another one, which they buy on the black market. Again, private sales and stolen guns don’t cover the demand of the criminal world. Trust me, there is a massive black market for guns in the US! 

Which is why you get harsh penalties for even caught carrying one. The numbers soon drop when you get death penalty for having one.

[pacovl46]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

Crimes of passion are less likely to result in deaths if there is not a weapon designed to kill at a distance at hand.

 

Opportunistic crimes (I assume many drive-by shootings are opportunistic) are also less likely to result in death without a gun.

Yes, but there is already a black market in the country and banning legal guns won’t accomplish anything because of the illegal guns used by criminals! Again, look at drugs! They’re illegal and available everywhere because of the demand and the huge profits that can be made with them, same goes for guns! 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

JVS  

I guess it depends on what you consider a "shooting"  62% of all deaths by Firearm are a suicide. 3% are accidental and 35% are homicides.  The homicide figure includes both justifiable homicides by police and civilians as well as true killings.  Of those the vast majority of deaths occur from handguns  As you can see from the attached, more people are killed using knives, other weapons, blunt objects like hammers and fists and feet than rifles.  

So does that mean you "regulate hammers" or have a limited size to knives as well.   Again, to beat a dead horse, focusing on the weapon used and not focusing on how to identify and take action against those who is bent on doing harm is a fools journey.  At best it will force those who wish to do harm to others to choose a different instrument of death. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

 

So get rid of guns. More lives saved. Winning.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, pacovl46 said:

Yes, but there is already a black market in the country and banning legal guns won’t accomplish anything because of the illegal guns used by criminals! Again, look at drugs! They’re illegal and available everywhere because of the demand and the huge profits that can be made with them, same goes for guns! 

Same for drugs. Death penalty. No issue when enforced.

 

Thought repubs where law and order types.

[pacovl46]

16 hours ago, heybruce said:

I agree.  But the US has lots of Dirty Harry wannabees who think they need a loaded gun at the ready at all times, and so leave them in drawers and cabinets around the house and in cars, often unlocked. 

 

This is a big part of the reason it is so easy for criminals to get guns; idiots make it easy to steal guns.

As long as you’re in the house, too, or have it on you that’s not a problem, but if I spent money on a gun and I’d leave the house without it, I’d make sure it’s locked up to not get it stolen because I wouldn’t want lose the gun nor the money I spent on it. Those are easy fixes, though. Make gun safes mandatory! Obviously there’s lots that needs to be fixed! 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Bazookas and tanks. Let everyone have them. They would do whats needed. Sarcasm alert.

 

And you have reasonable restrictions opposed. Repubs are seriously demented.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-says-biden-is-prepared-to-issue-executive-orders-on-guns-180754699.html

 

Bazookas, Ha Ha 

 

So now Biden wants to issue an executive order, why is that? Clearly it what the American people want, why does he not let it go through Congress? 

 

Clearly the only reason is to so that the CS Democrats do not have to vote on it. 

 

If such a large majority of the American public wants it, ANYONE that voted against it would not be reelected.

 

It's a big lie. This whole outrage is about the next election. 

[pacovl46]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Which is why you get harsh penalties for even caught carrying one. The numbers soon drop when you get death penalty for having one.

Death penalty doesn’t deter anything because murders are either committed in the heat of the moment where the murderer isn’t capable of thinking about the consequences or it’s a planned murder and they usually plan it accordingly to hopefully not getting caught and therefore the death penalty doesn’t apply to them from their point of view.

 

Also, if the death penalty would really deter murders then there wouldn’t be any murders in the country, apart from passion murders. That alone already proves that it doesn’t deter!  
 

Good luck trying to take away the right to bear arms from US citizens! That’s never going to happen!