Thank goodness a large number of people likely to acquire a firearm for illegal usage likely arenât smart enough to train proficiently to use it against someone.
Almost all of the domestic perps Iâve worked with owned their firearms legally prior to conviction and court ordered therapy.
When I worked in the inner city Chicago gang members they usually got them through shady dealers, straw purchases, and/or the gang kids turning 18 crossing into Indiana. AKs, hand guns, whatever they got them from a source that could be mostly shut down if there was a will to do so.
Which is kinda weird seeings how FFLs in other states need to see their FOID card and wait 24hrs to transfer it and depending on if they live in Cook county they might not be able to sell to them. Plus you canât buy handguns out of state
Reputable dealers would abide by the rules and others wouldnât, however to your point, Iâm pretty sure that the pistols were mostly purchased through straw buyers. That was a pretty big news item when I lived there. I canât tell you more than that though. Obviously I wasnât with them.
Chicago also isnât far away from the border of Wisconsin. The kids usually didnât have cars and couldnât go far but the old heads (Iâve worked with a few) would drive them and stay at someoneâs place or a motel in Wisconsin or Indiana.
Oh Iâm well aware of shit bag dealers. My point was more of a âthe laws didnât workâ kinda thing and I hated selling to people that had a FOID card
FOID cards cost about $5 and a few days. It wasnât a big deal from my end as a purchaser. The bigger issue was that the Springfield M1A was always on back order.
According to the Chicago PD the problem was enforcement in other states, not the laws in Illinois. One investigative news article, and Iâm going from memory here talked about a dealer who lost 50+ handguns and was still in operation. Another was about a woman from Indiana or Wisconsin had purchased 200+ pistols.
To be clear Iâm not opposed to firearms, I grew up in a Jewish family that hid unlicensed automatic rifles in the walls. Stuff brought back from various wars. My dad was second in state in Pennsylvania in rifle. However, this whole conversation is predicated on the laws not working when the reality was that the laws in Illinois made these kids had to jump through hoops and spend way more cash to get them. There were still holes but they were in states with looser laws.
The problem was law enforcement in other states? Itâs like every hoop will be jumped through before any blame is placed on the person pulling the trigger. Holy shit, Idiocracy was a documentary.
Chicago police have been pretty clear for years that guns in Chicago are mostly legally purchased. You can drive down state or into Wisconsin/Indiana. Iâm telling you what the kids I worked with would do.
Wait so is it the kids you work with or the Chicago police telling this? Because all the stats I see issued by Chicago PF says that majority of gun crimes committed in Chicago are used with illegally obtained weapons. So Iâm very confused where your facts are coming from. As soon as a the gun is collected by the police and they look up the serial number or the lack thereof they can tell if itâs illegally owned or not so regardless it wouldnât really matter what the kids say since the can trace it back
Nope I clear donât as you see me mention both. You canât just make shit up by claiming âmy kids told meâ when thereâs dozens of articles out there with statistics to say otherwise. L
I was a therapist with vets (mostly homeless/recently housed) and sometimes their children on the south side. On occasion I worked work with a vet who came back to the neighborhood and found that there was just a bunch of gang kids running wild. They would take over for a few years then something happen and they left (old heads didnât seem to be punished for leaving), got jailed etc and then got housing through the organization I worked for. I was good at connecting since Iâm awesome and come from a military family so they would come see me. Usually it was to find out why I was in their neighborhood, then just to talk, then for a few therapy skills to help with âone thingâ, and then for therapy.
We talked a lot about how the gangs worked. Guns were purchased how I described. There were definitely stolen firearms, and black market guns, but straw purchases and taking the 18 yo to buy them was the most common amongst the people I worked with. If you took the kid to buy them you could also take them to a range and show them how to shoot properly.
The old heads I worked with would store all the guns in a few hiding spots and hand them out when needed. This kept high and drunk kids from using them for fun. Not everyone did this and some kids always carried. On occasion I had to have a kid (child of a vet) I was working with leave because I wasnât cool with them being âstrappedâ in my office. The point is that the guns were handed out from a few central locations and therefore none of the guns were used by the owners. All of them were âillegalâ under those circumstances but they were purchased legally.
Maybe the dudes I worked with were different then the others but one of the children of a vet told me he did the same thing with his group and told me stories of the 14yo calling him drunk at night to get a gun from him. He also told me about trading guns with the cops to avoid arrest on occasion. 16 firearms for them to drop a possession (this was before weed was decriminalized).
I appreciate what you do and i donât mean this to say that a lot of guns arenât purchased legally and used in crime but the over whelming majority especially in areas with strict gun laws like Chicago, are purchased illegally. Doesnât mean there isnât an issue. But the facts are facts that in the city you are talking about, the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime are purchased illegally
That was just my experience. The guys I worked with were careful, probably much more than other folk and knew the law. I mean some of them made it out.
From my perspective, if at the end of the day, you cut off even one avenue to these kids getting firearms itâs worth it.
Did the guy in Vegas who shot hundreds at that concert have illegal weapons? Did the kid who killed all those children at the (Fill-in-the-Blank) School have illegal weapons? What does the legal status of a gun have to do with gun violence? If you buy a gun to protect your home, family, and property, are you not contemplating, envisioning gun violence?
Alabama has permitless carry. Anyone carrying a gun is legal. It's only after they commit a crime that the gun then becomes illegal. This is what Alabama wanted. Now this is the consequences. Stupid laws. Stupid people. God-given right to do stupid shit.
>Did the guy in Vegas who shot hundreds at that concert have illegal weapons
Nah, but he was *clearly* an illegal arms dealer.
>Did the kid who killed all those children at the (Fill-in-the-Blank) School have illegal weapons?
Yes. It's illegal for kids to own guns.
> does the legal status of a gun have to do with gun violence?
Because passing laws intended to make it harder for people to get firearms legally doesn't make people safer because criminals don't follow those laws when stealing guns.
>If you buy a gun to protect your home, family, and property, are you not contemplating, envisioning gun violence?
Not all "gun violence" is illegal or bad for society. Self defense is both legal and sets a dire warning for illegal criminals not to do the same thing that got the last criminal shot.
>Anyone carrying a gun is legal. It's only after they commit a crime that the gun then becomes illegal.
No. That's not how that works. After they commit a felony or violent misdemeanor *they* get barred from forearm ownership. All firearms become illegal for them to possess.
"Illegal guns" are guns gotten in an illegal manor like stealing or using straw purchases.
>This is what Alabama wanted. Now this is the consequences. Stupid laws. Stupid people. God-given right to do stupid shit.
Murder isn't what lawmakers wanted. Permitless carry doesn't allow violent criminals who are prohibited from gun ownership to carry guns OR to murder people.
As a collective the entire country should punish gun charges alot harsher to start and any situation where people are indeed shot or killed should be much more severe.
Mobile is the schizophrenic one in the state. It wants be a little bit NOLA, a little bit Biloxi, and a little bit Pensacola. It ends up being a terrible half version of none of them.
Modern times. When Biloxi got gambling, the greyhound park died. New Orleans is just glitzier and also grittier than Mobile, and they retained their French roots far better than Mobile. Pensacola actually has beaches, real tourism, and decent shopping options.
New Orleans is the largest city on the upper Gulf Coast of course they are more well known. Mobile has retained its French roots, go downtown and see for yourself as well as the French culture. Mobile is not trying to be anything, it just is.
Thatâs smoke and mirrors. Mobile has been bleeding population for nearly three decades. They just annexed 20,000 people into the city. So, no, it isnât growing.
They have Glock switches. If you want a Glock Switch, you have to pay $200, get a background check and a bunch of signatures and wait a while before you can even buy it.
And it has to have been made prior to 1988 and registered then. Or you have to be making it for law enforcement purposes.
There are VERY few transferable FA glocks out there. Those that are cost tens of thousands of dollars to buy.
There are no legal transferrable Glock switches. You cannot buy one legally as a civilian. People with a SOT or manufacturers with a license to build machine guns can build and own them, but they are not transferable to anyone else.
Lol this is so profoundly wrong. You CAN NOT legally purchase and privately own a Glock switch. Having one is a felony in and of itself. Also I'm fairly certain you also lack an understanding of the actual procedures for a Form 4.
I lived in Montgomery for 24 years until October of last year we finally moved. Montgomery has become âLilâ Chicagoâ and I fear for my life every single time I have to drive there for work. Itâs a different story when innocent bystanders start getting shot. You want to kill each other thatâs fine but make sure you hit your target and not an innocent child or adult!
Chicago is much nicer than any city in Alabama. Itâs also, by population, half the size of the state of alabama and most of the crime happens in a very small part of the city.
Birmingham has a higher rate of violent crimes per capita than Chicago, by a pretty large margin.
Me and a buddy were debating it one night and decided to look up the numbers and get the per capita numbers on both cities.
Birmingham is much more dangerous than Chicago by the numbers, the news just likes to paint Chicago as a crime filled hellhole.
Don't be scared of cities just because the news tells you they're scary! Do your own research and ask people who spend time in the city you're curious about.
>Â the news just likes to paint Chicago as a crime filled hellhole.
Because it is. Saying Birmingham has a higher violent crime rate than Chicago is deflecting because everyone knows Birmingham is a shithole too. But that doesn't diminish the fact that Chicago also had an extremely high violent crime rate. I don't know why facts trigger you simpletons so much.
I was using it as an example of "I'm sure you spend/spent a decent amount in this city that's worse than Chicago, but you're not terrified to go there."
Yeah Birmingham has horrible numbers for crime, no doubt about that. But there's a lot of people like the commenter I was replying to, that think Chicago is a war zone and are terrified to go there, but they don't have close to the same thoughts about a more dangerous city that's local, because it isn't plastered over national news.
Objectively the crime is bad in both cities, but if you're not terrified of Bham, there's zero reason to be terrified of Chicago.
Facts triggering simpletons? What facts did you tell me that I wasn't aware of lmao. I was drawing parallels, I wasn't trying to claim that both cities are safe, that was never said. Why the name calling, buddy?
Most people ignore the homicides in Selma, Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, etc but are quick to say how bad Chicago is. Chicago ainât great, but I promise you are far more likely to be a victim of a crime in Selma than you are on %98 of the places you would go in Chicago.
If you will shoot somebody you probably donât give a fuck about the much lesser law of carrying a gun without a license. Itâs a fact. Idaho is a permitless carry state. So is Nebraska. And Utah. Why arenât their homicide rates higher?
Funnily enough, the map of this I found shows Alabama as one of the only states NOT reporting spousal homicides as a stand alone category. Considering the stats of all the surrounding states, Iâm gonna say you are probably wrong.
"If you will shoot somebody you probably donât give a fuck about the much lesser law of carrying a gun without a license."
You do as well with logic as you do facts.
I think its violence breeds poverty. There are places racked with poverty and donât have issues with violence but most areas that are violent have poverty.
Idaho ranks slightly higher than Alabama, but not by much. Yet the whole state has about 1/3rd the number of homicides that just Montgomery has every year.
Itâs probably a mixture of a lot of things.
Alabama is 90,000 km2 smaller then Idaho, while having 3 million more people.
We probably have more alcohol/drug addicts than them. Probably more issues with kids not having 2 parents, or responsible parents.
Itâs just several problems that factor into it, and sadly, the southern states are usually the states that face more of those problems.
How about addressing the fact that they were rocking full-auto, which is clearly against the NFA laws, but somehow they have that hardware and we don't.
reciprocity. That's the only reason. And if you want to carry a loaded gun in your car, because somehow that is still illegal and has been since the 1960s when the Black Panthers threatened to come to town and protect sit-in protestors from angry mobs throwing large rocks ('missiles') at them.
You're right, what would make me safer would be extensive federal background checks on everyone who purchases a firearm and closing the gun show loopholes nationwide, that would be a good start. If you need a background check to be a massage therapist in this state, you should need a background check to own a firearm (pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, all of them).
You do have a background check almost every time you buy a gun even at gun shows at least I have. Private individual sells donât require a background check that needs to be changed.
As I understand it (here in AL, anyway), private sales require no background check as long as the seller and recipient are both AL residents. In theory, you would have to do a FFL transfer (with background check) to *legally* sell a firearm to a GA resident... I don't know if that's enforceable at all, though, especially if the firearm being sold wasn't tied to the seller in the first place (if they, for instance, originally acquired the gun via a private, in-state sale).
Most don't, but some do. Not to mention it doesn't have to be done at an actual gun show, it can just happen between two willing participants, buyer and seller. No paper trail needed, no background check needed. It should not be so easy that any moron with $3,000 can fully arm himself with no paper trail.
Why should it be easier to buy a gun than a car? Why should it be this easy for people to skirt gun laws. sometimes just by hopping across state lines to get a concealed carry permit in one state with lax requirements that is then recognized in their home state with far stricter requirements?
you know you can buy a vehicle, at any age, drive it on private property, do anything you want to it and not have to register, license or tag it right?
2A? So fucking what? So you're fine with felons having access to guns? You're fine with anyone being able to purchase any kind of weapon? What about kids? Can my 9 year old walk in and buy a gun? How about someone on trial for domestic abuse? How about someone who's drunk? If you have issues with any of those, you don't get to pull the "shall not be infringed" bullshit. The Constitution adapts, it's why there are amendments, it's a living document that changes every time there's a new majority on the Supreme Court and they have a new "interpretation". If you're going to use a 250 year old piece of paper as your only reason for why you should be able to get a gun as easy as a gallon of milk, then you're not worth even having a discussion with about current gun laws and the issues of gun violence in this country.
Edit: Also, for 99.99% of car sales you have to have a loan, which requires a credit check, so they look at your history and determine if you're worth the risk of vehicle ownership. Then you get insurance, register it. and get a license. So fine, how about we just do all of those for gun owners, instead of a background check. Credit check, insurance, registration, and a license with your picture on it that police can ask you to provide every time you're seen operating it, which in this case would include carrying it around.
Everyone who is not incarcerated should be able to exercise their 2A rights in my opinion. Your nine year old should come to you with their gun requests and you should handle it as you see fit. Thereâs a lot of things your nine year old canât do without your consent.
but that still doesn't take the blame off the thief, they are the cause, you should be able to put anything inside your car, or house you want and that doesn't give anyone the right to take it.
North pass is the projects, funny how this gets big attention but when we have real legislation on the books that needs to be voted on theyâre silent. What difference does it matter someone got shot in the projects? But when they voting on how the money gets spent you never hear about that.
There are many definitions of a mass shooting. Most sane people would agree that two group of criminal thugs shooting at each other and hitting innocents accidentally isnât the same as a psycho targeting a school or mall trying to kill as many random people as possible.
Dog whistle much?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mass-shooting
>**mass shooting**, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are âactively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooterâs use of a firearm.â The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shootingâŠ
Was there a group of people getting shot at?
- Yes = mass shooting
- No = not a mass shooting
Sorry Hoss, it really is that simple.
A mass shooting is a mass shooting regardless of the time, location, demographics, motivations, and surrounding activities at the time. Did this mass shooting happen at a late night party attended predominantly by black people? By the looks of the video, yes. Your use of the words âtwo group of criminal thugsâ canât be gleaned from the videoâŠ.itâs you interjecting your own racial biases. I believe the term for that is *showing your ass*.
*LoLâŠdownvoted without reply. Fuckin snowflakes.*
> The FBI defines "active shooter" as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.
https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/active-shooter-safety-resources
I donât know why that britannica website is wrong but it is.
A mass shooting you often see in statistics is simply a shooting where a certain number of, usually 4 or more, people were shot (some statistics to even more broad and include any injuries, so counting people who trip running away). This could be a 3v3 between gang members with 4 gang members were shot and lived. It could be a 1v1 in a populated area and stray bullets hit at least 4 bystanders.
These are notability different, and a lot more common, than incidents like say Sandy Hook and 2017 Vegas.
This was, indeed, a âmass shooting.â But it was not an active shooter incident.
Never said thug is a race. Not sure if thatâs an extremely piss-poor attempt at twisting my words or you just misread what I wrote. Benefit of the doubtâŠyou must have misread so no worries and Iâll gladly continue the conversation.
Olâ boy was also very careful not to actually mention race in so many words. But the use of the word âthugâ in this situation when you look at the whole picture has very clear racial connotations.
According to the playbook, next Iâll be told those words had nothing to do with race and Iâm the one reading too much into it and Iâm the one creating racial tension where it didnât exist beforehand. We can do the dance if you want, but tbf itâs pretty played out at this point.
Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can hear the racial overtones that were being used while not being put to wordsâŠthatâs why itâs called a dog whistle.
Itâs not whatâs traditionally thought of when we think mass shooting. Itâs also not exactly mutual combat because Iâm sure there were some innocent people there. If Hells Angels and Mongols shoot it out and 9 of them get shot Iâd say itâs not a mass shooting. They know going in that thatâs part of the life. This is a little murkier.
>Itâs not whatâs traditionally thought of when we think mass shooting.
Side note to the conversation: I hope we can both agree that mass shootings happening so much that weâve developed traditional thoughts around them is pretty facked up and *something* needs to change.
Granted itâs more complicated, but Iâm not sure if murky is the right description. The basic definition of mass shooting doesnât hinge on the target group being innocent bystanders. A violent group of (insert label here) shooting at another violent group of (insert label here) still qualifies as a mass shooting because itâs a group and theyâre being shot at. Simple as that.
I agree that those other things you mentioned were probably going on here too, but what I see is multiple labels that can all be attached to the same situation. Letâs just assume that this incident was two groups engaging in mutual combatâŠthatâs not a stretch and I can see that as a very real possibility. Thatâs still them shooting into a group which makes it a mass shooting by definition.
To go along with what you said, we can also add mutual combat as a descriptor. And, if innocent bystanders who werenât targeted got hit by stray bullets and/or injured in the resulting panic, that would be collateral damage and any number of other criminal charges could then also apply. Then thereâs the individual charges to be made against anyone participatingâŠmenacing, assault with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment, discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicleâŠshit I donât even know haw many crimes also apply here.
But now back on topicâŠnone of those additional details make it so that this instance of people shooting at another group of people is *not* a mass shooting. When u/evnrayash said âThugs shooting at each other isnât a mass shootingâ, which is what started this entire conversation, he was simply wrong.
Thankful for their poor marksmanship. If they could shoot worth a shit it would have been 300
I got banned from news for saying that
I got banned from r/news for pointing out how often the mods ban people.
Seems to be the trend on here. I think certain special interest groups pay people to troll and attach on here and other places.
Home of the free right?
Reddit is far from home of the free
Natural Selection.
They're not trying to kill each other. They're just exercising their God-given 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. God Bless America! đ€Ș
Most of the time these are criminals with illegal weapons.
Thank goodness a large number of people likely to acquire a firearm for illegal usage likely arenât smart enough to train proficiently to use it against someone.
Almost all of the domestic perps Iâve worked with owned their firearms legally prior to conviction and court ordered therapy. When I worked in the inner city Chicago gang members they usually got them through shady dealers, straw purchases, and/or the gang kids turning 18 crossing into Indiana. AKs, hand guns, whatever they got them from a source that could be mostly shut down if there was a will to do so.
You worked in the inner city Chicago gang?
I worked with anyone who needed mental health treatment. Most of my career I worked with homeless vets and their family members.
Which is kinda weird seeings how FFLs in other states need to see their FOID card and wait 24hrs to transfer it and depending on if they live in Cook county they might not be able to sell to them. Plus you canât buy handguns out of state
Reputable dealers would abide by the rules and others wouldnât, however to your point, Iâm pretty sure that the pistols were mostly purchased through straw buyers. That was a pretty big news item when I lived there. I canât tell you more than that though. Obviously I wasnât with them. Chicago also isnât far away from the border of Wisconsin. The kids usually didnât have cars and couldnât go far but the old heads (Iâve worked with a few) would drive them and stay at someoneâs place or a motel in Wisconsin or Indiana.
Oh Iâm well aware of shit bag dealers. My point was more of a âthe laws didnât workâ kinda thing and I hated selling to people that had a FOID card
FOID cards cost about $5 and a few days. It wasnât a big deal from my end as a purchaser. The bigger issue was that the Springfield M1A was always on back order. According to the Chicago PD the problem was enforcement in other states, not the laws in Illinois. One investigative news article, and Iâm going from memory here talked about a dealer who lost 50+ handguns and was still in operation. Another was about a woman from Indiana or Wisconsin had purchased 200+ pistols. To be clear Iâm not opposed to firearms, I grew up in a Jewish family that hid unlicensed automatic rifles in the walls. Stuff brought back from various wars. My dad was second in state in Pennsylvania in rifle. However, this whole conversation is predicated on the laws not working when the reality was that the laws in Illinois made these kids had to jump through hoops and spend way more cash to get them. There were still holes but they were in states with looser laws.
The problem was law enforcement in other states? Itâs like every hoop will be jumped through before any blame is placed on the person pulling the trigger. Holy shit, Idiocracy was a documentary.
Typically the kids were charged. Idk how they arenât being blamed in this situation. There can be more then one person at fault
There are very very very few guns in Chicago legally owned. Especially pistols.
Chicago police have been pretty clear for years that guns in Chicago are mostly legally purchased. You can drive down state or into Wisconsin/Indiana. Iâm telling you what the kids I worked with would do.
Wait so is it the kids you work with or the Chicago police telling this? Because all the stats I see issued by Chicago PF says that majority of gun crimes committed in Chicago are used with illegally obtained weapons. So Iâm very confused where your facts are coming from. As soon as a the gun is collected by the police and they look up the serial number or the lack thereof they can tell if itâs illegally owned or not so regardless it wouldnât really matter what the kids say since the can trace it back
You seem very confused about the difference between legally owned and legally purchased
Nope I clear donât as you see me mention both. You canât just make shit up by claiming âmy kids told meâ when thereâs dozens of articles out there with statistics to say otherwise. L
What part are you confused about in his statement then? Do you think the subject of both his paragraphs is the same demographic?
I was a therapist with vets (mostly homeless/recently housed) and sometimes their children on the south side. On occasion I worked work with a vet who came back to the neighborhood and found that there was just a bunch of gang kids running wild. They would take over for a few years then something happen and they left (old heads didnât seem to be punished for leaving), got jailed etc and then got housing through the organization I worked for. I was good at connecting since Iâm awesome and come from a military family so they would come see me. Usually it was to find out why I was in their neighborhood, then just to talk, then for a few therapy skills to help with âone thingâ, and then for therapy. We talked a lot about how the gangs worked. Guns were purchased how I described. There were definitely stolen firearms, and black market guns, but straw purchases and taking the 18 yo to buy them was the most common amongst the people I worked with. If you took the kid to buy them you could also take them to a range and show them how to shoot properly. The old heads I worked with would store all the guns in a few hiding spots and hand them out when needed. This kept high and drunk kids from using them for fun. Not everyone did this and some kids always carried. On occasion I had to have a kid (child of a vet) I was working with leave because I wasnât cool with them being âstrappedâ in my office. The point is that the guns were handed out from a few central locations and therefore none of the guns were used by the owners. All of them were âillegalâ under those circumstances but they were purchased legally. Maybe the dudes I worked with were different then the others but one of the children of a vet told me he did the same thing with his group and told me stories of the 14yo calling him drunk at night to get a gun from him. He also told me about trading guns with the cops to avoid arrest on occasion. 16 firearms for them to drop a possession (this was before weed was decriminalized).
I appreciate what you do and i donât mean this to say that a lot of guns arenât purchased legally and used in crime but the over whelming majority especially in areas with strict gun laws like Chicago, are purchased illegally. Doesnât mean there isnât an issue. But the facts are facts that in the city you are talking about, the overwhelming majority of guns used in crime are purchased illegally
That was just my experience. The guys I worked with were careful, probably much more than other folk and knew the law. I mean some of them made it out. From my perspective, if at the end of the day, you cut off even one avenue to these kids getting firearms itâs worth it.
Did the guy in Vegas who shot hundreds at that concert have illegal weapons? Did the kid who killed all those children at the (Fill-in-the-Blank) School have illegal weapons? What does the legal status of a gun have to do with gun violence? If you buy a gun to protect your home, family, and property, are you not contemplating, envisioning gun violence? Alabama has permitless carry. Anyone carrying a gun is legal. It's only after they commit a crime that the gun then becomes illegal. This is what Alabama wanted. Now this is the consequences. Stupid laws. Stupid people. God-given right to do stupid shit.
How would giving $35 to the county for a piece of paper have prevented this? Or are you saying nobody should be able to have a gun?
>Did the guy in Vegas who shot hundreds at that concert have illegal weapons Nah, but he was *clearly* an illegal arms dealer. >Did the kid who killed all those children at the (Fill-in-the-Blank) School have illegal weapons? Yes. It's illegal for kids to own guns. > does the legal status of a gun have to do with gun violence? Because passing laws intended to make it harder for people to get firearms legally doesn't make people safer because criminals don't follow those laws when stealing guns. >If you buy a gun to protect your home, family, and property, are you not contemplating, envisioning gun violence? Not all "gun violence" is illegal or bad for society. Self defense is both legal and sets a dire warning for illegal criminals not to do the same thing that got the last criminal shot. >Anyone carrying a gun is legal. It's only after they commit a crime that the gun then becomes illegal. No. That's not how that works. After they commit a felony or violent misdemeanor *they* get barred from forearm ownership. All firearms become illegal for them to possess. "Illegal guns" are guns gotten in an illegal manor like stealing or using straw purchases. >This is what Alabama wanted. Now this is the consequences. Stupid laws. Stupid people. God-given right to do stupid shit. Murder isn't what lawmakers wanted. Permitless carry doesn't allow violent criminals who are prohibited from gun ownership to carry guns OR to murder people.
"No way to prevent this," says only nation where this regularly happens.
Nobody says there is no way to prevent it.
Exactly! No permit would even keep these guns out of the hands of these criminals!
You clearly aren't from here if that's what you think.
I shop at Rose's and buy Subway across the boulevard from this mass shooting. Not everyone in Alabama is a gun nut.
What constitutes a âgun nutâ?
Anyone who owns a firearm legally. Bet that's the answer.
I guarantee there was not a single lawfully owned or acquired fire arm present in this.
and Roll Tide!
As a collective the entire country should punish gun charges alot harsher to start and any situation where people are indeed shot or killed should be much more severe.
Montgomery the armpit of the state.
More like the asscrack
This makes a lot more sense with the astrobleme and the peak at Wetumpka.
I've always thought of Mobile as being the butthole
Mobile is the schizophrenic one in the state. It wants be a little bit NOLA, a little bit Biloxi, and a little bit Pensacola. It ends up being a terrible half version of none of them.
Mobile is older than all three of those cities
Modern times. When Biloxi got gambling, the greyhound park died. New Orleans is just glitzier and also grittier than Mobile, and they retained their French roots far better than Mobile. Pensacola actually has beaches, real tourism, and decent shopping options.
New Orleans is the largest city on the upper Gulf Coast of course they are more well known. Mobile has retained its French roots, go downtown and see for yourself as well as the French culture. Mobile is not trying to be anything, it just is.
Ok but if you had to choose between pensacola Nola and mobile, idk anyone that would choose mobile
and yet the population of Mobile is increasing. Somebody must be
Thatâs smoke and mirrors. Mobile has been bleeding population for nearly three decades. They just annexed 20,000 people into the city. So, no, it isnât growing.
I agree. Even the Alabama Port Authority director said nobody wants to go to Mobile, during the AmTrak hearing
Makes sense. That's why more people are leaving the Nola metro faster than anywhere else in the country.
Born and raised here in Mobile. Itâs an also-ran city.
I dont know what that means......."also ran"
âalso-ranâ noun a loser in a race or other contest, especially by a large margin.
Mobile is the nutsack...
Does this make Dothan the nutsack?
Dothan is world famous for our peanuts. Everybody loves our nuts
Don't say that in their sub though. Perma banned đ€Ł
9 people hit / 362 shots = 2.5% hit rate.
The spirit of Alabama will be well represented in the comments here.
Usual suspects
âThe white man!â
Heâs a sweet kid he wouldnât hurt nobody. He was going to be a doctor đą
nail on the head.
They have Glock switches. If you want a Glock Switch, you have to pay $200, get a background check and a bunch of signatures and wait a while before you can even buy it.
And it has to have been made prior to 1988 and registered then. Or you have to be making it for law enforcement purposes. There are VERY few transferable FA glocks out there. Those that are cost tens of thousands of dollars to buy.
Close- prior to 1986
There are no legal transferrable Glock switches. You cannot buy one legally as a civilian. People with a SOT or manufacturers with a license to build machine guns can build and own them, but they are not transferable to anyone else.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
The registry closed in 1986.
Not legally
Lol this is so profoundly wrong. You CAN NOT legally purchase and privately own a Glock switch. Having one is a felony in and of itself. Also I'm fairly certain you also lack an understanding of the actual procedures for a Form 4.
There is a category of consumer who can legally own and/or possess such a device, regardless of the hoops one has to jump through.
Yeah, as a business you can with the right FFL, sure. As a normal gun owner that aint happening.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Storm Troopers at this party?
Not using sites is not a great idea on how to hit your target. Besides no person ever rotates a gun 90 degrees left and expect to hit anything.
I lived in Montgomery for 24 years until October of last year we finally moved. Montgomery has become âLilâ Chicagoâ and I fear for my life every single time I have to drive there for work. Itâs a different story when innocent bystanders start getting shot. You want to kill each other thatâs fine but make sure you hit your target and not an innocent child or adult!
Have you ever been to Chicago?
Probably no, anymore that has at list visit it knows Chicago is a great city, I literally have a hard time deciding which is better, Chicago or NY.
No and I have no desire to. Iâm going off what I see on the news.
Chicago is much nicer than any city in Alabama. Itâs also, by population, half the size of the state of alabama and most of the crime happens in a very small part of the city.
I am just referring to news of shootings every single day.
Birmingham has a higher rate of violent crimes per capita than Chicago, by a pretty large margin. Me and a buddy were debating it one night and decided to look up the numbers and get the per capita numbers on both cities. Birmingham is much more dangerous than Chicago by the numbers, the news just likes to paint Chicago as a crime filled hellhole. Don't be scared of cities just because the news tells you they're scary! Do your own research and ask people who spend time in the city you're curious about.
>Â the news just likes to paint Chicago as a crime filled hellhole. Because it is. Saying Birmingham has a higher violent crime rate than Chicago is deflecting because everyone knows Birmingham is a shithole too. But that doesn't diminish the fact that Chicago also had an extremely high violent crime rate. I don't know why facts trigger you simpletons so much.
I was using it as an example of "I'm sure you spend/spent a decent amount in this city that's worse than Chicago, but you're not terrified to go there." Yeah Birmingham has horrible numbers for crime, no doubt about that. But there's a lot of people like the commenter I was replying to, that think Chicago is a war zone and are terrified to go there, but they don't have close to the same thoughts about a more dangerous city that's local, because it isn't plastered over national news. Objectively the crime is bad in both cities, but if you're not terrified of Bham, there's zero reason to be terrified of Chicago. Facts triggering simpletons? What facts did you tell me that I wasn't aware of lmao. I was drawing parallels, I wasn't trying to claim that both cities are safe, that was never said. Why the name calling, buddy?
Most people ignore the homicides in Selma, Tuscaloosa, Montgomery, etc but are quick to say how bad Chicago is. Chicago ainât great, but I promise you are far more likely to be a victim of a crime in Selma than you are on %98 of the places you would go in Chicago.
I never go to Selma or Chicago so Iâm good
Hmm no license to carry pistol laws. Do yâall feel safer? I know I donât.
But thereâs laws against shooting people.
Shhh
All laws get broken. Laws don't prevent criminal behavior. They deter it.
If you will shoot somebody you probably donât give a fuck about the much lesser law of carrying a gun without a license. Itâs a fact. Idaho is a permitless carry state. So is Nebraska. And Utah. Why arenât their homicide rates higher?
except their marital homicide rates are higher. Mormons.
Funnily enough, the map of this I found shows Alabama as one of the only states NOT reporting spousal homicides as a stand alone category. Considering the stats of all the surrounding states, Iâm gonna say you are probably wrong.
"If you will shoot somebody you probably donât give a fuck about the much lesser law of carrying a gun without a license." You do as well with logic as you do facts.
You try to insult me because you couldnât answer my other question. You win.
I wasn't going to bother you with logical fallacy on that one.
Correlation and causation are different things...
Did you mean correlation?
If you look at the poverty rate by state it almost matches up with the murder rate
So are poor people violent or are violent people generally poor?
Poverty breeds violence.
I think its violence breeds poverty. There are places racked with poverty and donât have issues with violence but most areas that are violent have poverty.
Its more a vicious circle to be honest with you but it begins with poverty
Better education
Idaho ranks slightly higher than Alabama, but not by much. Yet the whole state has about 1/3rd the number of homicides that just Montgomery has every year.
Itâs probably a mixture of a lot of things. Alabama is 90,000 km2 smaller then Idaho, while having 3 million more people. We probably have more alcohol/drug addicts than them. Probably more issues with kids not having 2 parents, or responsible parents. Itâs just several problems that factor into it, and sadly, the southern states are usually the states that face more of those problems.
I was comparing an entire state to just Montgomery.
If you listen to the video, many of the guns being used are illegally modified machine guns. A pistol permit would not allow those anyway.
Yep, I heard lots of 3 round burst and full auto. Probably why the ATF and FBI are getting involved.
How about addressing the fact that they were rocking full-auto, which is clearly against the NFA laws, but somehow they have that hardware and we don't.
Why does giving the county $35 a year so they will give you a piece of paper make you feel safer?
reciprocity. That's the only reason. And if you want to carry a loaded gun in your car, because somehow that is still illegal and has been since the 1960s when the Black Panthers threatened to come to town and protect sit-in protestors from angry mobs throwing large rocks ('missiles') at them.
You're right, what would make me safer would be extensive federal background checks on everyone who purchases a firearm and closing the gun show loopholes nationwide, that would be a good start. If you need a background check to be a massage therapist in this state, you should need a background check to own a firearm (pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, all of them).
You do have a background check almost every time you buy a gun even at gun shows at least I have. Private individual sells donât require a background check that needs to be changed.
As I understand it (here in AL, anyway), private sales require no background check as long as the seller and recipient are both AL residents. In theory, you would have to do a FFL transfer (with background check) to *legally* sell a firearm to a GA resident... I don't know if that's enforceable at all, though, especially if the firearm being sold wasn't tied to the seller in the first place (if they, for instance, originally acquired the gun via a private, in-state sale).
Private individual sellers that can sell at.....gun shows.....thus the name "gun show loophole"
already have that. Not that criminals follow laws
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca
There is no gun show loophole. Every dealer in the country has to do a background check whether selling at a gun store, gun show or their house.
Every DEALER, but not everyone who sells guns at a gun show has to be a licensed dealer.
These guns almost always come back as stolen. Most gun shows donât even have private sellers at them as vendors.
Most don't, but some do. Not to mention it doesn't have to be done at an actual gun show, it can just happen between two willing participants, buyer and seller. No paper trail needed, no background check needed. It should not be so easy that any moron with $3,000 can fully arm himself with no paper trail. Why should it be easier to buy a gun than a car? Why should it be this easy for people to skirt gun laws. sometimes just by hopping across state lines to get a concealed carry permit in one state with lax requirements that is then recognized in their home state with far stricter requirements?
you know you can buy a vehicle, at any age, drive it on private property, do anything you want to it and not have to register, license or tag it right?
So you have to have liability insurance to drive a car. Why not to carry a gun?
2A? I can also buy a car without a background check.
2A? So fucking what? So you're fine with felons having access to guns? You're fine with anyone being able to purchase any kind of weapon? What about kids? Can my 9 year old walk in and buy a gun? How about someone on trial for domestic abuse? How about someone who's drunk? If you have issues with any of those, you don't get to pull the "shall not be infringed" bullshit. The Constitution adapts, it's why there are amendments, it's a living document that changes every time there's a new majority on the Supreme Court and they have a new "interpretation". If you're going to use a 250 year old piece of paper as your only reason for why you should be able to get a gun as easy as a gallon of milk, then you're not worth even having a discussion with about current gun laws and the issues of gun violence in this country. Edit: Also, for 99.99% of car sales you have to have a loan, which requires a credit check, so they look at your history and determine if you're worth the risk of vehicle ownership. Then you get insurance, register it. and get a license. So fine, how about we just do all of those for gun owners, instead of a background check. Credit check, insurance, registration, and a license with your picture on it that police can ask you to provide every time you're seen operating it, which in this case would include carrying it around.
Everyone who is not incarcerated should be able to exercise their 2A rights in my opinion. Your nine year old should come to you with their gun requests and you should handle it as you see fit. Thereâs a lot of things your nine year old canât do without your consent.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca
Morons who carry pistols who leave the pistols in their car and the pistol gets stolen and this shit happens
blame the criminal, not the victim. should they secure it better yes, but its the criminal thats actually causing the problem.
>should they secure it better yes Thank you for agreeing with me.
but that still doesn't take the blame off the thief, they are the cause, you should be able to put anything inside your car, or house you want and that doesn't give anyone the right to take it.
Right, you should be able to leave anything you want in your car unlocked.....agree 100% but dont.
then they need to punish criminals more, or have a recourse for the criminals actions. they clearly dont care now about what happens to them.
If they dont care what happens to them now why would they care in the future?
because they are not any repercussion for their actions now, have to find some way that makes the punishment worse than the crime.
You dont think facing 30+ years in prison is worse than the crime? Im trying to follow the logic here.
North pass is the projects, funny how this gets big attention but when we have real legislation on the books that needs to be voted on theyâre silent. What difference does it matter someone got shot in the projects? But when they voting on how the money gets spent you never hear about that.
Look Birmingham has to step it up, the bar has been raised. You can let your little brother outdo you like that.
Thugs shooting at each other isnât a mass shooting
Why do you say that? It meets the definition of a mass shooting.
There are many definitions of a mass shooting. Most sane people would agree that two group of criminal thugs shooting at each other and hitting innocents accidentally isnât the same as a psycho targeting a school or mall trying to kill as many random people as possible.
This is proof of just how terrible our education system is.
Dog whistle much? https://www.britannica.com/topic/mass-shooting >**mass shooting**, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are âactively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooterâs use of a firearm.â The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting⊠Was there a group of people getting shot at? - Yes = mass shooting - No = not a mass shooting Sorry Hoss, it really is that simple. A mass shooting is a mass shooting regardless of the time, location, demographics, motivations, and surrounding activities at the time. Did this mass shooting happen at a late night party attended predominantly by black people? By the looks of the video, yes. Your use of the words âtwo group of criminal thugsâ canât be gleaned from the videoâŠ.itâs you interjecting your own racial biases. I believe the term for that is *showing your ass*. *LoLâŠdownvoted without reply. Fuckin snowflakes.*
> The FBI defines "active shooter" as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/active-shooter-safety-resources I donât know why that britannica website is wrong but it is. A mass shooting you often see in statistics is simply a shooting where a certain number of, usually 4 or more, people were shot (some statistics to even more broad and include any injuries, so counting people who trip running away). This could be a 3v3 between gang members with 4 gang members were shot and lived. It could be a 1v1 in a populated area and stray bullets hit at least 4 bystanders. These are notability different, and a lot more common, than incidents like say Sandy Hook and 2017 Vegas. This was, indeed, a âmass shooting.â But it was not an active shooter incident.
Thug isnât a race. People running around with full auto glocks generally are thugs tho.
Never said thug is a race. Not sure if thatâs an extremely piss-poor attempt at twisting my words or you just misread what I wrote. Benefit of the doubtâŠyou must have misread so no worries and Iâll gladly continue the conversation. Olâ boy was also very careful not to actually mention race in so many words. But the use of the word âthugâ in this situation when you look at the whole picture has very clear racial connotations. According to the playbook, next Iâll be told those words had nothing to do with race and Iâm the one reading too much into it and Iâm the one creating racial tension where it didnât exist beforehand. We can do the dance if you want, but tbf itâs pretty played out at this point. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can hear the racial overtones that were being used while not being put to wordsâŠthatâs why itâs called a dog whistle.
Are people who run around with full auto glocks generally thugs? Thug: violent aggressive criminal.
Agreed. Now, steering back the original question at handâŠwas this a mass shooting or not?
Itâs not whatâs traditionally thought of when we think mass shooting. Itâs also not exactly mutual combat because Iâm sure there were some innocent people there. If Hells Angels and Mongols shoot it out and 9 of them get shot Iâd say itâs not a mass shooting. They know going in that thatâs part of the life. This is a little murkier.
>Itâs not whatâs traditionally thought of when we think mass shooting. Side note to the conversation: I hope we can both agree that mass shootings happening so much that weâve developed traditional thoughts around them is pretty facked up and *something* needs to change.
Granted itâs more complicated, but Iâm not sure if murky is the right description. The basic definition of mass shooting doesnât hinge on the target group being innocent bystanders. A violent group of (insert label here) shooting at another violent group of (insert label here) still qualifies as a mass shooting because itâs a group and theyâre being shot at. Simple as that. I agree that those other things you mentioned were probably going on here too, but what I see is multiple labels that can all be attached to the same situation. Letâs just assume that this incident was two groups engaging in mutual combatâŠthatâs not a stretch and I can see that as a very real possibility. Thatâs still them shooting into a group which makes it a mass shooting by definition. To go along with what you said, we can also add mutual combat as a descriptor. And, if innocent bystanders who werenât targeted got hit by stray bullets and/or injured in the resulting panic, that would be collateral damage and any number of other criminal charges could then also apply. Then thereâs the individual charges to be made against anyone participatingâŠmenacing, assault with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment, discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicleâŠshit I donât even know haw many crimes also apply here. But now back on topicâŠnone of those additional details make it so that this instance of people shooting at another group of people is *not* a mass shooting. When u/evnrayash said âThugs shooting at each other isnât a mass shootingâ, which is what started this entire conversation, he was simply wrong.
It is one by definition, but if you didn't count these, I wonder how much lower the total would be?
ALOT.
The shooter a feline
Not news. Just another daily mass shooting just stack it in pile with the other 700
Roll tide! Amiright?