Yet another US shooting

[ICTChris]

Someone was arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s house while armed and having made threats against him. Maybe a high profile assassination will do the trick with regards to gun control.

Edited June 8, 2022 by ICTChris

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Someone was arrested near Brett Kavanaugh’s house while armed and having made threats against him. Maybe a high profile assassination will do the trick with regards to gun control.

They'd likely say if Brett had a fully automatic machine gun (still illegal) it need never have happened. You'd  need three or four Justices getting assassinated by teenagers with AR15s, preferably black, before they'd take notice. Fair shook them up when the Black Panthers were strutting about fully armed, and within the law. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by welshbairn

[Albus Bulbasaur]

One of the best in the business.

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[Frosty]

I seen it said elsewhere but I don’t think anything will change until they start showing you the bodies of the children. 
Would take a brave parent to allow that to go public, but I think it would make a bigger impact 
Pleading is obviously doing nothing, so let them see exactly what the price is they’re willing to keep paying to own weapons of war 

Unfortunately the damage an AR-15 does to a body especially when it’s a head shot as appears to have been the case in most of the victims here isn’t going to be something the media puts on general release.

This is from the BBC today:

Uvalde paediatrician Dr Roy Guerrero also spoke to the committee to describe the fatal injuries he witnessed.
"Two children, whose bodies had been pulverised by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart. That the only clue as to their identities were the blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them," he recalled.

[Leith Green]

4 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Unfortunately the damage an AR-15 does to a body especially when it’s a head shot as appears to have been the case in most of the victims here isn’t going to be something the media puts on general release.

This is from the BBC today:

Uvalde paediatrician Dr Roy Guerrero also spoke to the committee to describe the fatal injuries he witnessed.
"Two children, whose bodies had been pulverised by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart. That the only clue as to their identities were the blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them," he recalled.

Matthew Mcconaughey said as much at the White house vid - they could only id one girl by her green converse.

The NRA are wankers.

[Clown Job]

5 hours ago, Frosty said:

Unfortunately the damage an AR-15 does to a body especially when it’s a head shot as appears to have been the case in most of the victims here isn’t going to be something the media puts on general release.

This is from the BBC today:

Uvalde paediatrician Dr Roy Guerrero also spoke to the committee to describe the fatal injuries he witnessed.
"Two children, whose bodies had been pulverised by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart. That the only clue as to their identities were the blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them," he recalled.

This is what people need to see 

Instead of old pictures of them smiling and looking happy

They need to see what these weapons do to a human body.

 

[Florentine_Pogen]

 

[Granny Danger]

37 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

This is what people need to see 

Instead of old pictures of them smiling and looking happy

They need to see what these weapons do to a human body.

 

Never thought about that but maybe it’s needed as part of the campaign.

[Leith Green]

Wonder woman gets them telt 

 

 

 

 

[BillyAnchor]

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/multiple-people-killed-in-shooting-at-washington-county-manufacturing-plant/3073621/

[Clown Job]

Republicans should see what an AR-15 does to a child’s body

Among the most infuriating talking points from gun fetishizers is that weapons of war have a legitimate use, such as hunting feral pigs or “varmints,” as Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said on Tuesday. Machine guns would kill them, too, but we do not allow such firepower for the purpose of hunting prairie dogs.

Such an argument is a revealing admission of utter selfishness: I want to use this particular gun to kill some animal, even though a less deadly weapon would be just as effective, so the heck with the little children being slaughtered in schools. It is also a lie and an attempt to play down the destructive force of certain weapons.

The notion that every American must have access to every possible weapon has never been the rule and defies common sense (should people be able to buy howitzers?). It also turns the Second Amendment into a recipe for mayhem never envisioned by its authors.

As retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton explained in a tweet thread, weapons such as an AR-15 are deadly weapons with "the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too.” Perhaps he and other military leaders should testify before Congress.

Also ignore the argument that banning assault weapons won’t work. That is propaganda from gun manufacturers that contradicts evidence from the 1994 assault weapons ban. New York University’s Michael J. Klein writes that in “the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. ... The data shows an almost immediate — and steep — rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.”

But reason and data only goes so far in today’s politics. Sometimes visceral horror is required of the type delivered in testimony on Wednesday from parents of gun victims and from Roy Guerrero, a pediatrician who saw the mangled, unrecognizable bodies of children in the Uvalde, Tex., school shooting. Guerrero told lawmakers he saw “two children whose bodies had been pulverized by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been [so] ripped apart, that the only clue as to their identities was the blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them.”

Those who survived are also a testament to the unnecessary, frightful power of these weapons. The mother of a man shot in the Buffalo massacre explained to Congress, “Let me paint a picture for you: My son Zaire has a hole in the right side of his neck, two on his back, and another on his left leg, caused by an exploding bullet from an AR-15.” She added, “As I clean his wounds, I can feel pieces of that bullet in his back. Shrapnel will be left inside of his body for the rest of his life. Now I want you to picture that exact scenario for one of your children.”

Republicans who attempt to normalize these weapons should have to confront the reality of their deadly force. If they do not listen to parents and doctors, they should see graphic pictures of the carnage they cause. Maybe that will make them stop prevaricating that these are ordinary weapons with ordinary uses.

I used to believe that showing pictures of murdered children would be exploitive, creating a backlash against gun-safety proponents. But we know that photos can be essential to prevent people from rationalizing, denying and minimizing atrocities. We know they turned public opinion in the past, including those of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine; of Phan Thi Kim Phuc running naked after a napalm attack in Vietnam; of Emmett Till’s mutilated body (“Let the people see what they did to my boy," his mother declared in demanding an open casket). Perhaps images of massacred children will make Republicans think twice before they defend weapons of war as no more terrifying than a shotgun.

[Jacksgranda]

Here's an amazing story - I'll stick it in here as it involves a murder.   https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/missing-baby-holly-found-alive-and-well-41-years-after-her-parents-were-murdered/ar-AAYi03D?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b604310d483e467b95e9f81c2036b343

[Florentine_Pogen]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/10/texas-school-shooting-police-chief-pete-arredondo

"The Texas school police chief criticized for his actions during one of the deadliest classroom shootings in US history said in his first extensive comments that he did not consider himself the person in charge as the massacre unfolded and assumed someone else was."

 

[TxRover]

On 08/06/2022 at 14:23, welshbairn said:

They'd likely say if Brett had a fully automatic machine gun (still illegal) it need never have happened. You'd  need three or four Justices getting assassinated by teenagers with AR15s, preferably black, before they'd take notice. Fair shook them up when the Black Panthers were strutting about fully armed, and within the law. 

You’ll enjoy this little note, then:

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/pkp8p8/glock-switches-auto-sears
 

The Dallas area is being hit pretty hard with idiots buying or printing these auto sears, installing them on their Glocks, and then blasting away at “enemies”. The problem is the weapon is completely uncontrollable, firing the whole magazine in less than 2 seconds, and sprays lead everywhere.

[Florentine_Pogen]

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

38 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

 

[Fullerene]

On 08/06/2022 at 14:02, Clown Job said:

I seen it said elsewhere but I don’t think anything will change until they start showing you the bodies of the children. 

Would take a brave parent to allow that to go public, but I think it would make a bigger impact 

Pleading is obviously doing nothing, so let them see exactly what the price is they’re willing to keep paying to own weapons of war 

Not going to happen.  It might be seen by a child left unattended watching TV and left traumatised.   Before you know it you are being sued by parents who actually agree with you on gun control.

I think I would be more tempted to show the famous D-Day landing scene from "Saving Private Ryan" and then ask two questions:

1. Would you allow this to be shown at your local primary school?  Resoundingly No.

2. Would you allow this to happen at your local primary school?  Apparently yes.

Too many Americans don't understand the irony here.

[Granny Danger]

8 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

Not going to happen.  It might be seen by a child left unattended watching TV and left traumatised.   Before you know it you are being sued by parents who actually agree with you on gun control.

I think I would be more tempted to show the famous D-Day landing scene from "Saving Private Ryan" and then ask two questions:

1. Would you allow this to be shown at your local primary school?  Resoundingly No.

2. Would you allow this to happen at your local primary school?  Apparently yes.

Too many Americans don't understand the irony here.

Don’t need to show it on TV, social media would do.

[DiegoDiego]

Not going to happen.  It might be seen by a child left unattended watching TV and left traumatised.

Well you wouldn't show it before the watershed. If any children are watching unattended after that then any distress is on the parents.

[Fullerene]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

 

Well you wouldn't show it before the watershed. If any children are watching unattended after that then any distress is on the parents.

You're one of those damned Trotskyites.  I am sure there is somewhere in the constitution that says my child can watch something before the watershed if I damn well choose it.  God bless America!