This time it’s Louisville, KY with the shooter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports of five dead and six injured by a shooter at a bank in Louisville. Maybe red states will start to change their view if more shootings happen in their states? Thoughts and prayers aren’t working, so it’s long past time to try something else.

I’m sorry for the victims and families (unless they’re anti gun control in which case you get what you get.)

How much worse will it get before it gets better? Columbine should have been enough, and definitely Sandy Hook. Maybe it’s time to start posting pictures of the carnage so people will start to understand the damage guns do, especially assault rifles. Nothing else is working.

Red states already have higher rates of gun violence and death: accident, homicide, and suicide. It doesn't matter, for several reasons: feelings about the second amendment, thinking they won't be affected (especially since blue cities in red states have a lot of the homicides and rural white voters distance themselves from that), huge campaign contributions from groups that oppose even very popular and minor changes to gun laws

That is a lot of statements with no support.

And yet, the death rates from firearms in red states are higher (do you dispute that?) and they are not passing laws to change that...if anything, going to more open carry.and easier permits for young adults or no permits required at all. To what do you attribute that?

I question everything when not supported.

California has had 25 mass shooting since 1982 - the most of any state. Last I checked it was not a red state.

Umm,,,for 24 of those 40 years CA had a Republican for governor

The legislature has been Democratic (with a brief break) since 1970.

The Democratic Party currently holds veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of the California State Legislature.[4] The Assembly consists of 62 Democrats and 18 Republicans, while the Senate is composed of 32 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Except for a brief period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election. The Senate has been under Democratic control since 1970, except for a brief period from 1973 to 1975.

[Anonymous]

Just remember, it's not the AR-15s, it's the "mental health"! MAGA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, it's not the AR-15s, it's the "mental health"! MAGA!

Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sadly there were messages on social media, multiple reports online of the banker reportedly telling a friend he was feeling suicidal and would "shoot up the bank".[/quote

Yep it was that... and the fact that he had... an AR-15! If you want to commit a mass shooting, there really is no substitute! NRA 4 Ever!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, it's not the AR-15s, it's the "mental health"! MAGA!

Idiot.

Republican: when's the next mass shooting scheduled for? Think we can get one in before the weekend? MAGA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where was bank security? Doesn’t every bank have armed security now? More proof that having armed security guards doesn’t stop mass shootings from happening.

Reports are that the shooting started in a conference room. Armed guards are not found in conference rooms.
And, the shooter was an employee.

Well, you can’t have armed security everywhere in any building/area. So it’s essentially not helpful, is it? Mall security guy is having lunch at the food court as a shooting starts in dept store at other end of the mall? No help. Bank guards are in lobby of bank as shooting starts in conference room? No help. School security guard is by front office as shooter comes in a different door of the school? No help. Etc. You simply can’t have someone armed and ready to shoot the shooter at all times. It’s impossible. So clearly having armed security is not preventing mass shootings.

If an employee decides to shoot up a location, even with armed security, it is going to be hard to stop it. Metal detectors would help.
Unless of course, you want to confiscate all firearms, in which case, the only ones left with firearms will be the criminals. And, they will continue to get firearms, or MAKE firearms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports of five dead and six injured by a shooter at a bank in Louisville. Maybe red states will start to change their view if more shootings happen in their states? Thoughts and prayers aren’t working, so it’s long past time to try something else.

I’m sorry for the victims and families (unless they’re anti gun control in which case you get what you get.)

How much worse will it get before it gets better? Columbine should have been enough, and definitely Sandy Hook. Maybe it’s time to start posting pictures of the carnage so people will start to understand the damage guns do, especially assault rifles. Nothing else is working.

Red states already have higher rates of gun violence and death: accident, homicide, and suicide. It doesn't matter, for several reasons: feelings about the second amendment, thinking they won't be affected (especially since blue cities in red states have a lot of the homicides and rural white voters distance themselves from that), huge campaign contributions from groups that oppose even very popular and minor changes to gun laws

That is a lot of statements with no support.

And yet, the death rates from firearms in red states are higher (do you dispute that?) and they are not passing laws to change that...if anything, going to more open carry.and easier permits for young adults or no permits required at all. To what do you attribute that?

I question everything when not supported.

California has had 25 mass shooting since 1982 - the most of any state. Last I checked it was not a red state.

Umm,,,for 24 of those 40 years CA had a Republican for governor

The legislature has been Democratic (with a brief break) since 1970.

The Democratic Party currently holds veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of the California State Legislature.[4] The Assembly consists of 62 Democrats and 18 Republicans, while the Senate is composed of 32 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Except for a brief period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election. The Senate has been under Democratic control since 1970, except for a brief period from 1973 to 1975.

The California democrats Jerrymandererd the crap out of the state, such that they hold a permanent supermajority.

[Anonymous]

Hero

[Anonymous]

These threads are always so predictable. At first people are outraged, offer condolences and give general info about the situation.

It quickly devolved into political potshots and the typical media tropes/Twitter and how ‘thoughts and prayers’ went from common condolence to a cynical meme is pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: These threads are always so predictable. At first people are outraged, offer condolences and give general info about the situation.

It quickly devolved into political potshots and the typical media tropes/Twitter and how ‘thoughts and prayers’ went from common condolence to a cynical meme is pretty sad.

+1 Thoughts and Prayers are wonderful. They are simply a must after a mass shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hero

Yes, he is a hero, as are all the other officers who ran towards the shooter. It is very very sad.

Having said that, I just don’t understand why LEOs and their representatives in general don’t support restrictions on guns, especially assault-type weapons. It makes no sense to me. How can they go to work every day knowing that so many civilians are armed and some are armed way better than the average cop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports of five dead and six injured by a shooter at a bank in Louisville. Maybe red states will start to change their view if more shootings happen in their states? Thoughts and prayers aren’t working, so it’s long past time to try something else.

I’m sorry for the victims and families (unless they’re anti gun control in which case you get what you get.)

How much worse will it get before it gets better? Columbine should have been enough, and definitely Sandy Hook. Maybe it’s time to start posting pictures of the carnage so people will start to understand the damage guns do, especially assault rifles. Nothing else is working.

Red states already have higher rates of gun violence and death: accident, homicide, and suicide. It doesn't matter, for several reasons: feelings about the second amendment, thinking they won't be affected (especially since blue cities in red states have a lot of the homicides and rural white voters distance themselves from that), huge campaign contributions from groups that oppose even very popular and minor changes to gun laws

That is a lot of statements with no support.

And yet, the death rates from firearms in red states are higher (do you dispute that?) and they are not passing laws to change that...if anything, going to more open carry.and easier permits for young adults or no permits required at all. To what do you attribute that?

I question everything when not supported.

California has had 25 mass shooting since 1982 - the most of any state. Last I checked it was not a red state.

Umm,,,for 24 of those 40 years CA had a Republican for governor

The legislature has been Democratic (with a brief break) since 1970.

The Democratic Party currently holds veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of the California State Legislature.[4] The Assembly consists of 62 Democrats and 18 Republicans, while the Senate is composed of 32 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Except for a brief period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election. The Senate has been under Democratic control since 1970, except for a brief period from 1973 to 1975.

The California democrats Jerrymandererd the crap out of the state, such that they hold a permanent supermajority.

Meanwhile in reality, an independent commission draws districts in California. There would be way fewer GOP House members from there if they didn’t.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where was bank security? Doesn’t every bank have armed security now? More proof that having armed security guards doesn’t stop mass shootings from happening.

Reports are that the shooting started in a conference room. Armed guards are not found in conference rooms.
And, the shooter was an employee.

Well, you can’t have armed security everywhere in any building/area. So it’s essentially not helpful, is it? Mall security guy is having lunch at the food court as a shooting starts in dept store at other end of the mall? No help. Bank guards are in lobby of bank as shooting starts in conference room? No help. School security guard is by front office as shooter comes in a different door of the school? No help. Etc. You simply can’t have someone armed and ready to shoot the shooter at all times. It’s impossible. So clearly having armed security is not preventing mass shootings.

If an employee decides to shoot up a location, even with armed security, it is going to be hard to stop it. Metal detectors would help.
Unless of course, you want to confiscate all firearms, in which case, the only ones left with firearms will be the criminals. And, they will continue to get firearms, or MAKE firearms.

Exactly. So who FAILED to report the killer’s threats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where was bank security? Doesn’t every bank have armed security now? More proof that having armed security guards doesn’t stop mass shootings from happening.

Reports are that the shooting started in a conference room. Armed guards are not found in conference rooms.
And, the shooter was an employee.

Well, you can’t have armed security everywhere in any building/area. So it’s essentially not helpful, is it? Mall security guy is having lunch at the food court as a shooting starts in dept store at other end of the mall? No help. Bank guards are in lobby of bank as shooting starts in conference room? No help. School security guard is by front office as shooter comes in a different door of the school? No help. Etc. You simply can’t have someone armed and ready to shoot the shooter at all times. It’s impossible. So clearly having armed security is not preventing mass shootings.

If an employee decides to shoot up a location, even with armed security, it is going to be hard to stop it. Metal detectors would help.
Unless of course, you want to confiscate all firearms, in which case, the only ones left with firearms will be the criminals. And, they will continue to get firearms, or MAKE firearms.

Don’t you think an employee carrying an AR-15 might be suspicious before he gets into the conference room?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I ALSO THINK THESE MASS SHOOTINGS ARE A RESULT OF OUR COLD, CALLOUS SOCIETY.

The U.S. is the only country that has anything like this level of problem. We're not that much more cold or callous than most other places - in some cases, we're warmer and more welcoming. Where we really, really differ is the number of guns per capita that we have in private hands. I'm all for making this a kinder, gentler nation -- but, really, the guns are the biggest problem.

I think PP is referring to that lack of a social safety net, mental health services are for the rich because insurance isn’t taken by most practices and the ones who do take insurance have long waitlists. We live in a dog-eat-dog society. Inequality is sky high.

If we can get a bipartisan agreement for massive public funding of mental health care infrastructure, I'd call it a win -- even if I think that guns are the larger part of the mass killing problem. Independent of these shootings, we need better mental health care in this country. [/quote

Won't happen unfortunately. We don't even have enough health care experts that can manage all the people who need help, even with public funding. There's a waitlist just to have teens work with therapists around here. And moreover, the people who most need the help aren't going to go get help. It's more a community watching out for each other to the OP point. The US is MOST CERTAINLY not a kind and gentle nation - LMAO. We are a capitalist society that preaches money above all. This is about as hardcore of a society as you find. Independence for all - that translates to zero community.