Gun Violence

thethe said:
Cops shouldn't be investigating someone for going to a gun range thats for damn sure.
Click to expand...

The guy who went to a range with a cut out of teenager who survived a mass shooting and shot at said target should be investigated

So

I disagree that they shouldn’t be looked at
 
goldfly said:
The guy who went to a range with a cut out of teenager who survived a mass shooting and shot at said target should be investigated

So

I disagree that they shouldn’t be looked at
Click to expand...

unless of course they carry a Koran or trying to sell cigarettes
why do you hate America ?
 
goldfly said:
you don't agree that that person should maybe be looked at to be unstable and might should be looked at as a gun owner?

weird
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight: you don’t believe that violent video games/a violent entertainment culture might should be “looked at” ... but you want to restrict paper targets at gun ranges?

I think we all agree that using real depictions of people as targets is tasteless, but hella slippery slope advocating that we should investigate those individuals.
 
Last edited:
A thing that came out of 9/11 was obvious signs there was something fishy with the "terrorists" - a lack of "connecting the dots"
To my mind and I am sure you disagree, just for sport, a red flag is being waved by carrying a picture of a person into a gun range and is a click or two above "tasteless"

But hey, that's just me
 
Last edited:
Hawk said:
By that logic, a person who uses the human body cutout while at a shooting range is homicidal.
Click to expand...

It seems like some folks are trying to have it both ways here. On one hand, there are complaints that law enforcement has failed to intervene earlier with various folks who've subsequently proved to be murderers. On the other hand, such intervention is considered to be an unlawful infringement of civil liberties. I'm not advocating for a particular position, just pointing out the tension, as I did earlier in the thread.

Seems to me that if you think the onus is on societal forces to head off these incidents before they happen, you'd be open to a potentially burdensome amount of scrutiny towards people who are publically, vocally advocating shooting people.
 
Julio3000 said:
It seems like some folks are trying to have it both ways here. On one hand, there are complaints that law enforcement has failed to intervene earlier with various folks who've subsequently proved to be murderers. On the other hand, such intervention is considered to be an unlawful infringement of civil liberties. I'm not advocating for a particular position, just pointing out the tension, as I did earlier in the thread.

Seems to me that if you think the onus is on societal forces to head off these incidents before they happen, you'd be open to a potentially burdensome amount of scrutiny towards people who are publically, vocally advocating shooting people.
Click to expand...

23 tips to police and FBI about a kid threatening to kills students = kid legally going to gun range

/Tdsjulio
 
when you vacation you often remember the rainy days more so than a relaxing day in the sun.

It was a very apt comparison.

Like terrorist attacks, law enforcement seldom beats their chest over stopping a crime before it happens
 
sturg33 said:
23 tips to police and FBI about a kid threatening to kills students = kid legally going to gun range

/Tdsjulio
Click to expand...

So you do think that local law enforcement or the Feds should investigate people, to the point of confiscating their guns, based on tips or social media posts? Illuminate me.
 
sturg33 said:
23 tips to police and FBI about a kid threatening to kills students = kid legally going to gun range

/Tdsjulio
Click to expand...

Haha, I notice that your going ad hominem on me correlates to when you holler that something is unconstitutional and I cite case law that shows the opposite, etc ad nauseam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top