Janney murder/suicide committed with a handgun in DC: Thanks, Scalia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

But he would not have. Killing without a gun is not as easy or as quick. Better health care and mental health care is no panacea for the culture of violence. The culture the nra and gun nuts perpetuate is the problem.

Hahaha. The gun nuts aren't the ones slaughtering people. Ever watch the local news? Can you figure out which demographic has turned parts of DC into a shooting gallery?

Which demographic? You mean, poor people? People in multigenerational poverty due to redlining and discrimination in education and job opportunities?
I won't engage (except to say: are *you* getting real news? The majority of terrorist killings in the past few years in the US have been committed by white conservative racists; see https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018.)

Here's the truth:
This mom was killed by a white man with a handgun.

[Anonymous]

And Republican judges made it easier for that man to get a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

This is a rightwing talking point that is so false I feel sorry for anyone who believes it.

If flamethrowers were legal mentally ill people would kill people with flamethrowers.
If grenades were legal mentally ill people would kill people with grenades.
If nerve gas were legal mentally ill people would kill people will nerve gas.

The solution is, as we recognize for most weapons, to ban flamethrowers, grenades, and nerve gas. Not flood the nation with them while conservative-media rubes whine about mental illness. (Mental illness treatment is a major problem. We should still do gun control.)

Handguns need to be banned in this country too. Just like we ban nerve gas and other weapons designed to kill people easily. Just like every other civilized country - from Canada to the UK to Australia - does. (Yes I know you can get a handgun license in Canada. But you have to transport it unloaded in a lockbox with a special permit. For all intents and purposes handguns are banned in Canada except at firing ranges.)

AMEN PP!

To the poster above you:

"We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs."

All true. But Republicans do not want any of this. They only want their guns. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

But he would not have. Killing without a gun is not as easy or as quick. Better health care and mental health care is no panacea for the culture of violence. The culture the nra and gun nuts perpetuate is the problem.

Hahaha. The gun nuts aren't the ones slaughtering people. Ever watch the local news? Can you figure out which demographic has turned parts of DC into a shooting gallery?

Which demographic? You mean, poor people? People in multigenerational poverty due to redlining and discrimination in education and job opportunities?
I won't engage (except to say: are *you* getting real news? The majority of terrorist killings in the past few years in the US have been committed by white conservative racists; see https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018.)

Here's the truth:
This mom was killed by a white man with a handgun.

Great deflection, changing the subject to terrorism, which is a tiny fraction of all homicides. And then you go back to an anecdotal story because facts don't support your bizarre position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

But he would not have. Killing without a gun is not as easy or as quick. Better health care and mental health care is no panacea for the culture of violence. The culture the nra and gun nuts perpetuate is the problem.

Hahaha. The gun nuts aren't the ones slaughtering people. Ever watch the local news? Can you figure out which demographic has turned parts of DC into a shooting gallery?

Which demographic? You mean, poor people? People in multigenerational poverty due to redlining and discrimination in education and job opportunities?
I won't engage (except to say: are *you* getting real news? The majority of terrorist killings in the past few years in the US have been committed by white conservative racists; see https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018.)

Here's the truth:
This mom was killed by a white man with a handgun.

Great deflection, changing the subject to terrorism, which is a tiny fraction of all homicides. And then you go back to an anecdotal story because facts don't support your bizarre position.

It's not deflection to point a white man with a gun killed this woman, since you're talking about a "specific demographic" that turned DC into a shooting gallery. Sorry you don't have the common sense to support common sense gun control measures like background checks. This man would have been prevented from buying a gun if buyers were required to undergo a background check with interviews of people who knew him (like his wife) who knew he was disintegrating and dangerous. This type of background check is required in many developed countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To people saying mental health should be a priority because people can kill each other without guns, YOU ARE OFF BY AN ENORMOUS DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE.

The USA is the only wealthy, democratic, nation to have such a heinous number of gun-related deaths. The murder rate is much, much lower in countries with restrictive gun laws. THIS IS A WELL-SUPPORTED FACT.

Anyone who yes-buts or supports gun ownership is complicit in the mass murder of fellow Americans. Period. End of story.

That is true. And
John Roberts, Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia are especially complicit in this particular crime.

Their decision in Heller contributed DIRECTLY to this death. Laws matter. Decisions matter.

How do those conservative judges sleep at night?

Well Scalia is dead. You seem oddly obsessed with this one case. Where was your outrage when the first person what shot in DC this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To people saying mental health should be a priority because people can kill each other without guns, YOU ARE OFF BY AN ENORMOUS DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE.

The USA is the only wealthy, democratic, nation to have such a heinous number of gun-related deaths. The murder rate is much, much lower in countries with restrictive gun laws. THIS IS A WELL-SUPPORTED FACT.

Anyone who yes-buts or supports gun ownership is complicit in the mass murder of fellow Americans. Period. End of story.

That is true. And
John Roberts, Sam Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia are especially complicit in this particular crime.

Their decision in Heller contributed DIRECTLY to this death. Laws matter. Decisions matter.

How do those conservative judges sleep at night?

Well Scalia is dead. You seem oddly obsessed with this one case. Where was your outrage when the first person what shot in DC this year?

This is an anonymous forum. How do you know what the PP's level of outrage was when the first person was shot in DC this year? Distract and deflect is all you can do because you have no way to justify the level of violence in this country without recognizing that guns are far more prevalent than they should be.

[Anonymous]

Does death absolve you of getting people killed?

Also, as pointed out above, John Roberts is alive and he’s just as complicit.

Pretty funny that the only defense conservatives have here is saying people aren’t outraged ENOUGH about all the handgun crime in DC.

[Anonymous]

Didn't the court find the DC restrictions to be unconstitutional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

I disagree. I live in DC and am happy with banning guns in DC. I also have access to a rural place where shooting for sport and hunting are part of the culture. I get both sides.

What I don't get, is the idea that there shouldn't be background checks, insurance and licensing for anyone wanting to own and operate a gun, just like a car.

I also don;t get why an AR-15 is needed under any circumstance other than mass killing of humans. One sure as heck wouldn't hunt with one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

I disagree. I live in DC and am happy with banning guns in DC. I also have access to a rural place where shooting for sport and hunting are part of the culture. I get both sides.

What I don't get, is the idea that there shouldn't be background checks, insurance and licensing for anyone wanting to own and operate a gun, just like a car.

I also don;t get why an AR-15 is needed under any circumstance other than mass killing of humans. One sure as heck wouldn't hunt with one.

The AR-15 is needed to use as gun identity politics, to get votes for rightwing billionaires’ tax cuts.

That’s the only reason it’s not banned, as in every other civilized nation.

Our country is being destroyed by Republican oligarchs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

I disagree. I live in DC and am happy with banning guns in DC. I also have access to a rural place where shooting for sport and hunting are part of the culture. I get both sides.

What I don't get, is the idea that there shouldn't be background checks, insurance and licensing for anyone wanting to own and operate a gun, just like a car.


Kindly explain to the best of your
I also don;t get why an AR-15 is needed under any circumstance other than mass killing of humans. One sure as heck wouldn't hunt with one.

Kindly explain, to the best of your ability, the material differences between an AR15 (which by the way cannot lawfully be owned in DC) and any other repeating rifle of your choice, elucidating, if you would, the reasons why you believe an AR15 is unsuited for hunting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

I disagree. I live in DC and am happy with banning guns in DC. I also have access to a rural place where shooting for sport and hunting are part of the culture. I get both sides.

What I don't get, is the idea that there shouldn't be background checks, insurance and licensing for anyone wanting to own and operate a gun, just like a car.


Kindly explain to the best of your
I also don;t get why an AR-15 is needed under any circumstance other than mass killing of humans. One sure as heck wouldn't hunt with one.

Kindly explain, to the best of your ability, the material differences between an AR15 (which by the way cannot lawfully be owned in DC) and any other repeating rifle of your choice, elucidating, if you would, the reasons why you believe an AR15 is unsuited for hunting

OHHHHHHH! You’re trying to show off your superior knowledge of guns! Wow, how could anyone ever argue with THAT?! I mean, it’s not like kids lives are at stake or anything.


I have no time for gun-fetishist semantic BS arguments.

If you don’t like people saying “ban AR-15”s, then I’m happy to say “ban all semiautomatics”. Would that make you feel better in your argument in your own head?

[Anonymous]

I’ve heard people talk about the “Roberts Five” - the Federalist Society (and thus billionaire)-backed Republican Supreme Court judges.

Seems to me that all of the Roberts Five are partially responsible for this woman’s death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard people talk about the “Roberts Five” - the Federalist Society (and thus billionaire)-backed Republican Supreme Court judges.

Seems to me that all of the Roberts Five are partially responsible for this woman’s death.

Or maybe the guy who shot her is responsible for her death.

It is not hard to obtain a weapon illegally in DC. You can also drive 5 min to purchase a gun in VA. How do you think criminals obtain guns in DC? Do you think they follow the law?

BUT SCALIA!!!