Philip Adams

Curious how early media speculation doesn’t paint it as a potential hate crime. I just need to figure out how some crimes are painted that way and some aren’t.

@Boris posted:

Anyone remember him?? I do.

No! What the fuck was he trying to do? Act white, fucking Uncle Tom?

Wish he would’ve killed himself first. How many mass shootings in the last two weeks now?

They copy each other, these mass shooters. I wish the press wouldn't publicize them, and I do everything I can to avoid any news on them, but why would the press give a shit. It brings viewers and readers, doesn't it?

I purposely do not listen to their names and I never use them. I’ll give the media one small degree of credit for doing a better job these days of not mentioning names of these murderers.

What I think the media SHOULD do after these events , is run a list of the politicians who vote against laws restricting registration and ammunition.

It really makes you wonder if the brain trauma from repeated hits has something to do with acts of violence.  There is some evidence out there already but too many suicides and violence toward others with current and former football players.

I remember when the media started refusing to say the names of shooters. That's when all the mass shootings stopped.

for fucks sake artis.  If doing the right thing doesn't fix the problem completely in your world is it still not worth doing. 

Unfortunately we have quite a few unstable folks, lots of criminals and, I’ve read about 400 million guns.

I’m open to suggestions but I see no quick fixes.

Hope I’m wrong.

It would seem to me that some type of mental health check should be required of anyone looking to acquire a weapon.  Along with a national registry of certain types of weapons- ie assault type rifles.  

The only issue is what do you do with the thousands of owners that already possess the weapons?  Make them re-certify?   That would be a fun exercise.  

Then again, if you are a law abiding citizen why would or should you care?  No different than having to show an ID to vote.  Seems to me those most defensive about any type of control are those that probably aren’t stable to use or own them anyway.

Outside of the whole gun debate at what point is the NFL going to wake the fuck up and realize their business is injuring and killing their employees on a regular basis?   You don’t see MLB or NBA players dying at 50 years of age or killing themselves (or others) at a steady clip.

I was 75% serious the other day when I suggested Rodgers should hang it up and host jeopardy.  Is it worth getting your brain scrambled?   Concussions are no joke.  Not sure how many I’ve had in my lifetime but slipped and fell and bounced my melon off our deck over the holidays.  I wasn’t right for weeks.  Most NFL players have probably had dozens of concussions over their careers.

@"We"-Ka-Bong posted:

for fucks sake artis.  If doing the right thing doesn't fix the problem completely in your world is it still not worth doing.

What exactly is "right" about refraining from naming these people? It's a petty  gesture with no real concrete effect. And the proof is in front of us every day. How has the practice deterred anything?

The don't deserve the notoriety.   No value comes from publicizing them.

And the shooters are still always identified

They need to look at which guns are most commonly used in these mass shootings and ban them.  Simple as that.  No one is shooting up schools and grocery stores and night clubs with an over-under shotgun or a bolt action hunting rifle. 

There is a lot that can be done but Washington won't touch gun laws.  Assault rifle and high capacity magazine ban.  Required registration for all fire arms, including mandatory safety training.  Laws requiring you to safely lock all firearms when not in use.  Required background checks for all gun sales (with no 3 day loophole).  It's not that hard. 

And before I get called out, I am a gun owner.  I went hunting with my dad as a kid and took hunter safety classed before he would let me shoot.  Responsible gun ownership is a good thing. 

Or handguns (mostly).  Don’t see many of them used in these types of incidents.

It’s the military style guns that tend to be mass killing weapon of choice because they can cause the most carnage in the least amount of time.  

I’m not currently a gun owner, but my dad was an avid hunter growing up and had numerous weapons in the house.  Never locked up any of his weapons.  No reason (then) to do it.  But it might make sense to do so now.

I fully respect the rights of those to own and use weapons for protection or hunting.  Assault weapons?  Unless you are active military or SWAT or in law enforcement I see no reason why you need to own one.  If you do, then we have a right to know who owns them and why and that you’ve been properly trained and certified to use them.  

I mean, I can’t buy a tank or grenade launcher or shoulder fired missile.  High capacity assault weapons aren’t a whole lot different.

I was never more discouraged about our country than what happened in response to Sandy Hook. A bunch of 6-year-olds were executed. Nothing happened in response because the NRA prevented anything meaningful from happening.  Scum-of-the earth like Alex Jones (and now some QAnon congresswoman) claimed that it was all a hoax. Fox News made fun of Obama for crying when he went to talk about it.

I grew up on a farm. You need a gun for some things, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least talk about what you could do to lower the incidence of these things. But, because of the NRA, you aren't even allowed to do NIH-funded medical or social-science research on anything related to guns.

Fuck the NRA.

@CUPackFan posted:

There is a lot that can be done but Washington won't touch gun laws.  Assault rifle and high capacity magazine ban.  Required registration for all fire arms, including mandatory safety training.  Laws requiring you to safely lock all firearms when not in use.  Required background checks for all gun sales (with no 3 day loophole).  It's not that hard.

And before I get called out, I am a gun owner.  I went hunting with my dad as a kid and took hunter safety classed before he would let me shoot.  Responsible gun ownership is a good thing.

I have owned guns, support the second amendment and the Heller decision written by Scalia, and agree with you for the most part. Key word there is responsible.

I had a weird moment yesterday.  Out running some errands with the family and had to stop at grocery store.   Drove into the parking lot and the first thing my 15 year old says is “isn’t this the location where Gabbie Giffords and others were shot?”  Yes indeed.  Safeway in N Tucson and you wouldn’t have known any different.  People going about their business and we’re out here visiting relatives during Spring Break.

I tried to imagine what that day must have been like for those caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  No different than schools or churches or movie theaters or other businesses.  It’s just sad.

At some point you would think common sense would kick in with some type of gun reform but alas here we are again. I’m hopeful we can get there.

@"We"-Ka-Bong posted:

The don't deserve the notoriety.   No value comes from publicizing them.

And the shooters are still always identified

The only reason to take such a stance like the media does when it chooses to do so is to make people feel like they did "something." The reality is that it has changed nothing. Shooters are always identified because it's a duty of public record. Encouraging media to withhold information usually doesn't yield positive outcome. As far as notoriety, if someone cites a previous shooter as their sole motivation, I'm going to bet there are any number of severe issues going on in addition to their lying or delusion. People can and will attach any bit of external reasoning for committing such a heinous act. Would we be better off not saying Hitler's name as well?

I'm of the opinion that if you need an assault-style rifle for hunting, then you probably shouldn't be hunting.

Just please everyone try and respectfully disagree. I’m not calling anyone out specifically, but this is a pretty emotional topic that spirals quickly. There is legitimate discussion to be had concerning the political solution to the problem, but unfortunately we haven’t even gotten to the stage where agree that there is a problem and exactly what the problem is. Certainly a former pro athlete murder-suicide covers a wide range of issues were dealing with from mental health, gun violence, brain trauma, and likely others.

@Tschmack posted:

It would seem to me that some type of mental health check should be required of anyone looking to acquire a weapon.  Along with a national registry of certain types of weapons- ie assault type rifles.  

The only issue is what do you do with the thousands of owners that already possess the weapons?  Make them re-certify?   That would be a fun exercise.  

I have always wondered what is that mental health check?  Is it something like a system that flags you if you have been committed, been to a counsellor, or on certain meds?  Certain crimes would be an obvious flag but I wonder how easy it would be to skirt around things.  Don't get me wrong as a gun owner I  FULLY support any kind of background checks.

Re-certifying is something I honestly never thought about.  How in the world would you do that if it became a thing?

Good luck putting the socio/psychopath society back in the tube.

Anyone watch the Hemingway series the last few nights?  

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."  We can't keep doing the "thoughts and prayers" thing over and over and over and expect that one day, like magic, all the shootings -- mass or otherwise -- will end.

It's time for some real change to be enacted. Ban high-capacity magazines and assault-style rifles (a deer should not die of lead poisoning), require safe storage of guns not in use, prosecute gun-law violators to the maximum extent allowed by law, red flag laws, etc. To anyone who says that guns don't cause deaths, it's the person using them that does... that's true, but sticks don't cause bruises either but I still take away the stick. And I'm a shotgun owner who carries a big stick. 

@Goalline posted:

They copy each other, these mass shooters. I wish the press wouldn't publicize them, and I do everything I can to avoid any news on them, but why would the press give a shit. It brings viewers and readers, doesn't it?

I have to laugh when the networks refuse to show idiot fans who run into the field during sporting events, yet dedicate hours of coverage to mass murderers.

@Pikes Peak posted:

Anyone watch the Hemingway series the last few nights?  

Yes. I knew he was a drunk but didn't realize what an overall scumbag he was. He treated his wife and children like shit.

@Maynard posted:

I'm of the opinion that if you need an assault-style rifle for hunting, then you probably shouldn't be hunting.

“Assault-style” lol... inventive.

I’m of the opinion that if you need 450hp to drive a car you shouldn’t be driving.

@Tschmack posted:

At some point you would think common sense would kick in with some type of gun reform but alas here we are again. I’m hopeful we can get there.

The unintended consequences of trying to legislate evil is, well, making it easier for evil to exist. That’s all this debate has EVER accomplished...

That quote, where ever you got it from, makes absolutely no sense. I’d be embarrassed to quote it.

450HP?  Depends on the car

I have a modded GTI that’s pushing over 300HP.  With a basic chip/ECU flash upgrade it’s around 400HP.  Since the car only weighs about 3,000 pounds, it’s got some get up and go.

Oh, and that’s a 4 cylinder.

The Hellcats of the world are almost 800HP.  That’s scary fast.

Many years ago I had a buddy that owned a ZX-11 Ninja.  To this day, that’s the fastest thing I’ve been around.  I wouldn’t feel safe driving it.  Closest thing you will find to a rocket ship.

Autos and bikes are meant for transportation (and for some) entertainment.  An AR-15 has one purpose - to kill and destroy as much in its path.  That’s the difference.

@RochNyFan posted:

Yes. I knew he was a drunk but didn't realize what an overall scumbag he was. He treated his wife and children like shit.

Yes he was a drunk and a clearly disturbed guy.  Everyone knew that he was unstable, family, colleagues, etc. He was going downhill for 30 years, had shock treatments and prior to his suicide was recently discharged from the Mayo Clinic after the latest series of shock  treatments. Yet after all this his wife left the keys to his gun safe on the kitchen table the night before he shot himself.  He only harmed himself but it could have been different.  

Which brings us back to this Adams tragedy and the recent Boulder shootings, the families of the shooters knew something was wrong yet as far as I can tell did little to stop it. A lot of these mass shootings had many clues in advance that could have been acted on.   The family’s reluctance to intervene in someway and easy access to guns in these cases did not help.

We may not be able to stop all mass shootings but Red Flag laws and trying to keep any type of guns away from unstable folks will prevent some.

@Tschmack posted:

Autos and bikes are meant for transportation (and for some) entertainment.  An AR-15 has one purpose - to kill and destroy as much in its path.  That’s the difference.

No, this is completely wrong. Firearms are made for shooting a target. They’re not meant for killing and destroying whatever is in their path- though that is something they can do. Shooting is what they’re made to do. Regardless of the accessories, what they look like, the caliber, what other uses people use them for... they’re meant for shooting.

Saying that a firearm is meant for killing and destroying is the same as saying any machine is meant for killing and destroying. It is PRECISELY the use of the machine that dictates whether it “kills and destroys” something. By the same logic, a wood chipper kills and destroys. A chainsaw kills and destroys. An automobile kills and destroys. They all can take a human life if used irresponsibly, recklessly, or maliciously.

A responsible firearm operator can enjoy a lifetime of firearm use without hurting a single person. Not one injury, not a single death, the only thing destroyed is a paper or plastic or clay target. The same can be said about every other machine as well.

The second amendment was put in place because any government is a threat against its people- so to curtail a tyrannical turn of government, the citizens have been assured the right to bear arms to defend themselves against it and other threats. It is not a requirement to bear arms, but it is a right. One read through the Federalist Papers is all you would need to understand this pretty clearly.

Federal Laws already in place limit the type of weapon available to citizens, size and caliber, who can sell them, where one can carry them, how old you have to be, and requirements to certify (background checks). Several State and local laws already in place take many of these limits even further, banning carrying firearms outright in many if not most places.

Laws don’t stop evil from doing evil. Never have.

No, but some guns do make some evils easier to accomplish. Can’t stab people and kill them as quickly with a sword

Assault rifles were developed specifically for military use.  Of course they fire bullets.  Most types of guns do.

These weapons are designed to lay down as much fire as quickly as possible.  For what purpose?  Sport?  Hunting?  Hardly.

There’s a reason most mass killings involve these types of weapons.  It’s easy to inflict a lot damage in a short amount of time.  

Short of banning these weapons (which I would say is debatable), at a minimum we should know who owns them and for what purpose.  And there absolutely needs to be a thorough vetting process to acquire one.  My guess is that’s part of the problem.  People know that they may not clear those hurdles to meet those standards.

I’m all for hobbies and protection but there is no good goddamn reason why any Joe Q citizen needs to own an assault rifle unless it’s in their job description which likely means they have already been vetted and trained how to use one.

You also can’t compare chainsaws and automobiles to guns in any manner.  Why not mention home appliances?  Were office supplies like staplers and paper shredders already accounted for?

Tanks were made for leisurely drives across Belgium. 

Laws are merely suggestions therefore there are no penalties. 

The invention of gun powder was for seasoning meat.

Blunderbuses were meant to be flower vases.