Seven shot, one dead in mass shooting at Ocean Springs, Mississippi beach restaurant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Reducing funding” as far as I understand it (and I sat through a 3 hour candidate forum yesterday afternoon where this came up) is more about trying to involve mental health professionals in the huge percentage of calls where that is what is needed vs police coming in to arrest people.

Crime is escalating out of control. We don't have enough mental health professionals in the world to contain the problem. This is not a viable plan and EVERYONE knows that.

No one said cut all police funding. It is more about trying to balance funding a little.

Rs love to talk about mental health yet put no dollars behind it

You're right, no one said that, so why are you saying that?

We should not be reducing police funding for some quixotic attempt at using therapists to solve the issues in our communities. One, because we don't have enough of them, and two, because this is experimental and hasn't been done anywhere at the scale being attempted here.

We need to use proven policing strategies and get this back in order. We aren't safe anymore.

We aren't safe because way too many people have guns.

Find a country on the planet that has as many gun deaths as we do. You can't.

Why? Because NO OTHER COUNTRY LETS ANYONE GET GUNS.

Too many guns makes no one safe. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Reducing funding” as far as I understand it (and I sat through a 3 hour candidate forum yesterday afternoon where this came up) is more about trying to involve mental health professionals in the huge percentage of calls where that is what is needed vs police coming in to arrest people.

Crime is escalating out of control. We don't have enough mental health professionals in the world to contain the problem. This is not a viable plan and EVERYONE knows that.

No one said cut all police funding. It is more about trying to balance funding a little.

Rs love to talk about mental health yet put no dollars behind it

You're right, no one said that, so why are you saying that?

We should not be reducing police funding for some quixotic attempt at using therapists to solve the issues in our communities. One, because we don't have enough of them, and two, because this is experimental and hasn't been done anywhere at the scale being attempted here.

We need to use proven policing strategies and get this back in order. We aren't safe anymore.

We aren't safe because way too many people have guns.

Find a country on the planet that has as many gun deaths as we do. You can't.

Why? Because NO OTHER COUNTRY LETS ANYONE GET GUNS.

Too many guns makes no one safe. Period.

Then they should he introducing legislation or taking actions toward that goal. They literally quit trying. Pathetic. If the democrats won't try to pass gun control, who will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s gang related, so this thread will die off now…

And so it did, wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Reducing funding” as far as I understand it (and I sat through a 3 hour candidate forum yesterday afternoon where this came up) is more about trying to involve mental health professionals in the huge percentage of calls where that is what is needed vs police coming in to arrest people.

Crime is escalating out of control. We don't have enough mental health professionals in the world to contain the problem. This is not a viable plan and EVERYONE knows that.

No one said cut all police funding. It is more about trying to balance funding a little.

Rs love to talk about mental health yet put no dollars behind it

You're right, no one said that, so why are you saying that?

We should not be reducing police funding for some quixotic attempt at using therapists to solve the issues in our communities. One, because we don't have enough of them, and two, because this is experimental and hasn't been done anywhere at the scale being attempted here.

We need to use proven policing strategies and get this back in order. We aren't safe anymore.

We aren't safe because way too many people have guns.

Find a country on the planet that has as many gun deaths as we do. You can't.

Why? Because NO OTHER COUNTRY LETS ANYONE GET GUNS.

Too many guns makes no one safe. Period.

Then they should he introducing legislation or taking actions toward that goal. They literally quit trying. Pathetic. If the democrats won't try to pass gun control, who will?

Dems are the only ones who have even attempted to be the adults in the room on this issue. Why do you keep attacking them, while giving the Republicans a pass?

The Dems aren't the ones who need to hear it. Your Republicans are the ones who you need to be getting in front of. Because until some Republicans can be peeled away to vote responsibly for gun regulation, the Dems have no hope of accomplishing anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are the democrats going to get serious about passing gun legislation? They blame the Republicans, but the democrats are in power and are not using it to pass gun control. Why?

Where? What?

Seriously, I mean, why can't the Democrats pass legislation? It's their fault for every one of these senseless acts. It couldn't be the unified opposition against ANY measures to pass gun safety legislation by the House (which is of course controlled by the Republicans). It couldn't be the filibuster proof Republican minority in the Senate that would block ANY gun control measures, right? So maybe, let's focus at the state level. Let's see...just this week, we have multiple mass shootings in...Texas, Mississippi. Yep, it's the gosh darned Democrats holding things back again at the state level. I mean, why can't they just ban AR-15 like they did in Illinois? Oh, they don't control any levers of power? You don't say? GTFO of here with ignorant comments like the above.

We need NATIONAL legislation because if it's at the state level, the criminals will find the states with the weakest laws and use them for their gun pipelines. That's already what happens - Chicago guns come from next door in Indiana, because Indiana's gun laws are weak.

This post is worth less than what people paid to read it, congrats on spreading lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess Republicanism is working how they want it? They want guns. They love Russia, who helps bring guns to the forefront through the NRA.

I guess you must have missed where Biden released the "Lord of War." A Russian arms dealer that had a movie made about him. Keep blaming it on the NRA but don't go looking in your own closet of dirty secrets.

How about we enforce the current gun laws for starters. When you arrest Hunter let me know, otherwise you a full of BS, all talk but no action. Then you wonder why there is gun crime when you let a crap ton of illegals and violent criminals on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another mass shooting in a red Southern state. I know they happen all over the country but it seems like more happen in places with laxer gun laws and with gun culture.

Chicago has had 88 mass shootings this year, only 19 weeks in. This is one city and not even an entire state. Please keep us informed about the lax gun laws there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are the democrats going to get serious about passing gun legislation? They blame the Republicans, but the democrats are in power and are not using it to pass gun control. Why?

Where? What?

Seriously, I mean, why can't the Democrats pass legislation? It's their fault for every one of these senseless acts. It couldn't be the unified opposition against ANY measures to pass gun safety legislation by the House (which is of course controlled by the Republicans). It couldn't be the filibuster proof Republican minority in the Senate that would block ANY gun control measures, right? So maybe, let's focus at the state level. Let's see...just this week, we have multiple mass shootings in...Texas, Mississippi. Yep, it's the gosh darned Democrats holding things back again at the state level. I mean, why can't they just ban AR-15 like they did in Illinois? Oh, they don't control any levers of power? You don't say? GTFO of here with ignorant comments like the above.

If the democrats can't pass legislation to get stricter gun control in this environment, then they either aren't trying or aren't capable. Have they even introduced any legislation to reduce gun violence at all?

They don't control the House, and the GOP won't touch the issue, so what do you suggest?

They had all 3 branches for two years. All the scum, both parties, sit up on their high horses and tell the peons what should happen. They are "do as I say and not as I do" people though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suspect was captured a while ago. Who is he? Not identified.

The news media should not be allowed to publicize the names of these perps. The publicity only encourages other armed, mentally ill people, to kill innocent people. These shooters should NEVER be identified in the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Reducing funding” as far as I understand it (and I sat through a 3 hour candidate forum yesterday afternoon where this came up) is more about trying to involve mental health professionals in the huge percentage of calls where that is what is needed vs police coming in to arrest people.

Crime is escalating out of control. We don't have enough mental health professionals in the world to contain the problem. This is not a viable plan and EVERYONE knows that.

No one said cut all police funding. It is more about trying to balance funding a little.

Rs love to talk about mental health yet put no dollars behind it

You're right, no one said that, so why are you saying that?

We should not be reducing police funding for some quixotic attempt at using therapists to solve the issues in our communities. One, because we don't have enough of them, and two, because this is experimental and hasn't been done anywhere at the scale being attempted here.

We need to use proven policing strategies and get this back in order. We aren't safe anymore.

We aren't safe because way too many people have guns.

Find a country on the planet that has as many gun deaths as we do. You can't.

Why? Because NO OTHER COUNTRY LETS ANYONE GET GUNS.

Too many guns makes no one safe. Period.

The government needs to start confiscating automatic and semi-automatic weapons. No civilian needs to own these weapons. They are instruments of war, not of self-protection or for hunting. These weapons should be illegal immediately, and anyone who owns one should be required to turn it in to the government or be fined $1,000 per day or go to jail. These weapons are always behind mass shootings. Get rid of them. It's like adding seatbelts to cars. The auto industry fought for years to stop seat belts, then to stop air bags. It will save lives to remove these weapons of war from the hands of American citizens. If you want to shoot a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, go to a gun range or join the military or National Guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are the democrats going to get serious about passing gun legislation? They blame the Republicans, but the democrats are in power and are not using it to pass gun control. Why?

Where? What?

Seriously, I mean, why can't the Democrats pass legislation? It's their fault for every one of these senseless acts. It couldn't be the unified opposition against ANY measures to pass gun safety legislation by the House (which is of course controlled by the Republicans). It couldn't be the filibuster proof Republican minority in the Senate that would block ANY gun control measures, right? So maybe, let's focus at the state level. Let's see...just this week, we have multiple mass shootings in...Texas, Mississippi. Yep, it's the gosh darned Democrats holding things back again at the state level. I mean, why can't they just ban AR-15 like they did in Illinois? Oh, they don't control any levers of power? You don't say? GTFO of here with ignorant comments like the above.

We need NATIONAL legislation because if it's at the state level, the criminals will find the states with the weakest laws and use them for their gun pipelines. That's already what happens - Chicago guns come from next door in Indiana, because Indiana's gun laws are weak.

This post is worth less than what people paid to read it, congrats on spreading lies.

What's the lie here, Boris?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are the democrats going to get serious about passing gun legislation? They blame the Republicans, but the democrats are in power and are not using it to pass gun control. Why?

Let me help you and others…

In 1994, Democratic President Bill Clinton, and Democratic former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden, successfully banned assault weapons when the anti-crime law was passed. At the time, there were approximately 400,000 AR-15 weapons in existence. The House of Representatives flipped to a Republican majority when Republican George W. Bush was elected President. Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse, despite promising to re-enact the law if it was passed by Congress. It wasn’t. There are now more than 20 million AR-15s in our country. 14 million of them were manufactured in our country.

2012– Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. President Barack Obama, a democrat, and the first African American president, reacted immediately and pushed for multiple gun legislations. But a Republican Congress rejected all gun reform legislation that was presented.Republican Mitch McConnell publicly stated that he “would not make it easy” for Democratic President Obama. A Republican Congress heard McConnell loud and clear, and they did not make it easy for the first black Presidentof the United States. The ELEPHANT in the room is GOP telling you right to your face that they are EXTREMIST, RACIST, MISOGYNISTIC, HATEFUL, LIARS who dabble in all sorts of criminal acts of fraud, sexual misconduct, and pedophilia. Trump is a now an official sex offender who was impeached twice for treason, inciting an insurrection, and attempting to fraudulently overturn an election while putting American lives in danger. Don’t forget the cherry on top, he specifically wanted VP Pence gone— for an hour, day, or forever!

2022–Uvalde Robb Elementary school shooting. Democratic President Joe Biden yet again made a plea to a Republican Congress to enact an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, universal background checks, and a myriad of legislations. Who’s the guy that banned assault weapons once? Who’s the guy that’s been adamantly trying to get this done?

[Anonymous]

while I don't disagree with the general sentiment above, there are 2 factual errors

#1 Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the first midterm of Clinton's Presidency

#2 2022 was still a Dem Congress overall...that said, Manchin and Sinema in the Senate refuse to axe the filibuster, so nothing of substance can happen in the Senate that D's want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:while I don't disagree with the general sentiment above, there are 2 factual errors

#1 Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the first midterm of Clinton's Presidency

#2 2022 was still a Dem Congress overall...that said, Manchin and Sinema in the Senate refuse to axe the filibuster, so nothing of substance can happen in the Senate that D's want

It’s not a sentiment, it’s facts. Your nitpicking is merely semantics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:while I don't disagree with the general sentiment above, there are 2 factual errors

#1 Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, the first midterm of Clinton's Presidency

#2 2022 was still a Dem Congress overall...that said, Manchin and Sinema in the Senate refuse to axe the filibuster, so nothing of substance can happen in the Senate that D's want

It’s not a sentiment, it’s facts. Your nitpicking is merely semantics.

Semantics? Those ARE facts. I was trying to make sure your statement was 100% factually accurate so that people couldn’t nitpick it. I’m on your side, sheesh