Off-Topic Mass killings

Nine died so far.
1683449395976.png

1683449603875.png

1683449542688.png

 
Advertisement
There are plenty of crimes committed with guns that were obtained illegally. Throw the book at every one of those for a start. Anyone accused of trafficking weapons gets the full attention of district attorneys and no gun crime gets dropped or pled down due to a lack of resources. Then we proceed from there.
We'd definitely need more prisons. And, the pattern is with many shootings, the gun was legal but the youth perp shouldn't have had access. So, a "parents wing' in those new prisons?
 
We'd definitely need more prisons. And, the pattern is with many shootings, the gun was legal but the youth perp shouldn't have had access. So, a "parents wing' in those new prisons?
Allowing access is a crime.
 
Allowing access is a crime.
That sounds like a misdemeanor? Even if it isn't, hard to find a prosecutor/grand jury who'd indict. A liberal Michigan prosecutor wants to try Ethan Crumbley's parents on four counts of involuntary manslaughter (for the four their son killed). Many conservatives don't like that ("no legal justification/sets a bad precedent").

In that Crumbley case, the kid told a friend that he believed he was having a mental breakdown and asked his parents for medical help but that his father told him to “suck it up” and his mother laughed.
 
Advertisement
That sounds like a misdemeanor? Even if it isn't, hard to find a prosecutor/grand jury who'd indict. A liberal Michigan prosecutor wants to try Ethan Crumbley's parents on four counts of involuntary manslaughter (for the four their son killed). Many conservatives don't like that ("no legal justification/sets a bad precedent").

In that Crumbley case, the kid told a friend that he believed he was having a mental breakdown and asked his parents for medical help but that his father told him to “suck it up” and his mother laughed.
People get upset about selective prosecution. Zero tolerance doesn't play favorites.
 
Media "thinking" on mass shooters has swung back again on its pendulum. Wasn't long ago Fox led the charge to never identify shooters by name, and not discuss their "manifestos/motives" as it gave these creeps publicity and a platform they did not deserve.

This morning, Fox is now calling loudly for the shooters background and motive (as they should, it's a disservice to do otherwise IMO). Just goes to show how "all over the place" society is on this.
 
Gov. Greg Abbott (R), Texas has moved in recent years to loosen restrictions on firearms. In 2021, Texas began allowing permitless carry (so residents can carry handguns without a license) and “does not specifically put restrictions on who can carry a long gun such as a rifle or shotgun.”

I don't live in an open carry state so school me on how this scenario works in Texas. Let's say a guy just walks into the mall wearing tactical gear and carrying his gun and ammo. No hostile intententions or shooting whatsover. That wouldn't have raised ANY eyebrows yesterday afternoon? No reason for anyone to say a word? He's just exercising his rights.

Switch it up. After the shooting in Allen yesterday, if another guy walks into another Texas mall today dressed and equipped similarly, what happens to him? Is he questioned or harassed by mall security, do concerned citizens subdue him like that ex-Marine in the NYC subway did a few days ago?
 
Media "thinking" on mass shooters has swung back again on its pendulum. Wasn't long ago Fox led the charge to never identify shooters by name, and not discuss their "manifestos/motives" as it gave these creeps publicity and a platform they did not deserve.

This morning, Fox is now calling loudly for the shooters background and motive (as they should, it's a disservice to do otherwise IMO). Just goes to show how "all over the place" society is on this.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top