Louisville Mass Murderer Killed Five To Get Firearms Banned

[slsc98]

A FREE subscription to the weekly compendium of actual, factual information on firearms related issues is an absolute must, in todays society: https://crimeresearch.org/

Even without a mainstream media blatantly complicit in not only disinformation but also repression of backgrounds like this one:

“A 13-page manifesto uncovered by the Daily Mail allegedly disclosed that the 25-year-old shot and killed multiple colleagues in part to prove his belief that guns are too easy to obtain in Kentucky.“

Louisville Mass Murderer Killed Five To Get Firearms Banned

Yet another mass murderer who supports gun control. The murderer’s manifesto hasn’t yet been released to the public though the UK Daily Mail has obtained a copy. Unfortunately, this cas…

crimeresearch.org

 

[press1280]

A FREE subscription to the weekly compendium of actual, factual information on firearms related issues is an absolute must, in todays society: https://crimeresearch.org/

Even without a mainstream media blatantly complicit in not only disinformation but also repression of backgrounds like this one:

“A 13-page manifesto uncovered by the Daily Mail allegedly disclosed that the 25-year-old shot and killed multiple colleagues in part to prove his belief that guns are too easy to obtain in Kentucky.“

Louisville Mass Murderer Killed Five To Get Firearms Banned

Yet another mass murderer who supports gun control. The murderer’s manifesto hasn’t yet been released to the public though the UK Daily Mail has obtained a copy. Unfortunately, this cas…

crimeresearch.org

So I guess we should just ban uber lefties from getting guns?

 

[Moonlighter]

So I guess we should just ban uber lefties from getting guns?

How about banning uber lefties?

 

[spoon059]

That would work about as well as banning guns...

Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Threeband]

Maybe we should nuke Buenos Aires to convince the world to eliminate nuclear weapons.

 

[whistlersmother]

Maybe we should nuke Buenos Aires to convince the world to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Thought the arachnids did that?

 

[Threeband]

Spiders or ticks?????

 

[welder516]

I often thought they are crazy enough to follow such a belief to do this.
We are doomed with these self appointed nimrods and criminal sociopaths .

 

[Muleskinner]

How about banning uber lefties?

I've been saying for years that FFLs should require a voter registration card at the time of purchase and deny democrats.

 

[lazarus]

I've been saying for years that FFLs should require a voter registration card at the time of purchase and deny democrats.

I know. And I responded another time you mentioned that to point out that mass shootings, the vast majority of them have no tie to any political belief. The most likely political belief of a mass shooter is "not registered to vote" or at least "not registered with any party".

For straight up terrorism in the US, the majority of it is rightwing extremist related. Compared to the 60s through 80s where it was mostly leftwing extremist related. Most of it doesn't involve guns though.

So other than "democrats are oogie and I don't agree with them", I am not sure how that would actually do, anything.

Make it so that fewer democrats own guns and have less incentive to push their representatives towards gun rights? Yeah, we are SOL places like MD because democrats have such overwhelming political power. On a federal level, there are a number of democrats in "liberal", but very middle of the road districts where a large portion of their constituents who voted for them are gun owners. Heck, look at some states pushing more extreme gun control that might be democrat controlled, but are much more rural states (like CO) where stricter gun control fails pretty regularly (and yes, occasionally it gets enacted, and the consequences are usually that a number of the democrats get voted out, or even recalled).

Besides, you'll likely find some FFLs are liberals. Or you'd get more liberals getting their own FFL.

I mean, I guess you could implement it as some kind of uber fascist requirement on FFLs from the government.

No true Scotsman and political purity crap rarely has good results.

To add, most FFLs would probably go out of business. ~25% of democratic households own a gun. 48% of independent households own a gun. 57% of republican households own a gun. And that was 5 years ago. COVID increase household gun ownership rates a lot. With significant more increases in democratic households than independent or republican.

If the test is "show my your voter registration card, if you 'wont' or it says democrat, no sale for you" in most of the US would likely tank sales 40-50% or more for most FFLs.

In the US about 48% of people are registered democrats. Only about 23% are registered republicans. About 29% aren't registered to vote.

And the rate of multiple gun ownership doesn't have a particularly strong tie to political affiliation (as in, Democrats just because they own a gun in the house, they aren't more likely to own only 1 gun, compared to a republican household. They are just as likely to own a bunch of guns if they have any in the household). So by virtue of the numbers, about half of gun owners in the US are democrats or independents (or don't GAF about voting so never registered).

 

[Bob A]

For straight up terrorism in the US, the majority of it is rightwing extremist related. Compared to the 60s through 80s where it was mostly leftwing extremist related. Most of it doesn't involve guns though.

Milady Leftist doth protest too much, methinks.

Protest, indeed!
Rioting and destruction in major cities doesn't require guns, but it's not the Right that's doing it; nor is it the Right that celebrates the criminal and riots when said criminal encounters terminal resistance from those empowered to enforce the law.

 

[Combloc]

I've often suspected that some idiot would do something like this.

 

[Troublesbrewin]

I know. And I responded another time you mentioned that to point out that mass shootings, the vast majority of them have no tie to any political belief. The most likely political belief of a mass shooter is "not registered to vote" or at least "not registered with any party".

For straight up terrorism in the US, the majority of it is rightwing extremist relatedu. Compared to the 60s through 80s where it was mostly leftwing extremist related. Most of it doesn't involve guns though.

So other than "democrats are oogie and I don't agree with them", I am not sure how that would actually do, anything.

Make it so that fewer democrats own guns and have less incentive to push their representatives towards gun rights? Yeah, we are SOL places like MD because democrats have such overwhelming political power. On a federal level, there are a number of democrats in "liberal", but very middle of the road districts where a large portion of their constituents who voted for them are gun owners. Heck, look at some states pushing more extreme gun control that might be democrat controlled, but are much more rural states (like CO) where stricter gun control fails pretty regularly (and yes, occasionally it gets enacted, and the consequences are usually that a number of the democrats get voted out, or even recalled).

Besides, you'll likely find some FFLs are liberals. Or you'd get more liberals getting their own FFL.

I mean, I guess you could implement it as some kind of uber fascist requirement on FFLs from the government.

No true Scotsman and political purity crap rarely has good results.

To add, most FFLs would probably go out of business. ~25% of democratic households own a gun. 48% of independent households own a gun. 57% of republican households own a gun. And that was 5 years ago. COVID increase household gun ownership rates a lot. With significant more increases in democratic households than independent or republican.

If the test is "show my your voter registration card, if you 'wont' or it says democrat, no sale for you" in most of the US would likely tank sales 40-50% or more for most FFLs.

In the US about 48% of people are registered democrats. Only about 23% are registered republicans. About 29% aren't registered to vote.

And the rate of multiple gun ownership doesn't have a particularly strong tie to political affiliation (as in, Democrats just because they own a gun in the house, they aren't more likely to own only 1 gun, compared to a republican household. They are just as likely to own a bunch of guns if they have any in the household). So by virtue of the numbers, about half of gun owners in the US are democrats or independents (or don't GAF about voting so never registered).

I would love to know your sources for your statistics.

I expect the old saying that 80% of statistics stated on the internet are made up, is in play. My expectations are that the majority of firearms in the US are not in the hands of who registered them most recently, through inheritance, gifting, illegal sales, and theft, many older guns are in unknown hands.

 

[owldo]

I have believed this to be the case in many of these incidents.
"The shooter also reportedly wanted to draw attention to mental illness, something his parents later disclosed he suffered from and took medicine for, and explicitly expressed a desire to kill himself. . . ."

But seems like he was too cowardly to do it himself !

 

[outrider58]

I've often suspected that some idiot would do something like this.

I've suspected that has been behind most of these mass murder/suicides.

BTW, didn't we know about this within a day or two after the Louisville shooting?

Lefties do love their martyrs...

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

 

[Muleskinner]

I know. And I responded another time you mentioned that to point out that mass shootings, the vast majority of them have no tie to any political belief. The most likely political belief of a mass shooter is "not registered to vote" or at least "not registered with any party".

For straight up terrorism in the US, the majority of it is rightwing extremist related. Compared to the 60s through 80s where it was mostly leftwing extremist related. Most of it doesn't involve guns though.

So other than "democrats are oogie and I don't agree with them", I am not sure how that would actually do, anything.

Make it so that fewer democrats own guns and have less incentive to push their representatives towards gun rights? Yeah, we are SOL places like MD because democrats have such overwhelming political power. On a federal level, there are a number of democrats in "liberal", but very middle of the road districts where a large portion of their constituents who voted for them are gun owners. Heck, look at some states pushing more extreme gun control that might be democrat controlled, but are much more rural states (like CO) where stricter gun control fails pretty regularly (and yes, occasionally it gets enacted, and the consequences are usually that a number of the democrats get voted out, or even recalled).

Besides, you'll likely find some FFLs are liberals. Or you'd get more liberals getting their own FFL.

I mean, I guess you could implement it as some kind of uber fascist requirement on FFLs from the government.

No true Scotsman and political purity crap rarely has good results.

To add, most FFLs would probably go out of business. ~25% of democratic households own a gun. 48% of independent households own a gun. 57% of republican households own a gun. And that was 5 years ago. COVID increase household gun ownership rates a lot. With significant more increases in democratic households than independent or republican.

If the test is "show my your voter registration card, if you 'wont' or it says democrat, no sale for you" in most of the US would likely tank sales 40-50% or more for most FFLs.

In the US about 48% of people are registered democrats. Only about 23% are registered republicans. About 29% aren't registered to vote.

And the rate of multiple gun ownership doesn't have a particularly strong tie to political affiliation (as in, Democrats just because they own a gun in the house, they aren't more likely to own only 1 gun, compared to a republican household. They are just as likely to own a bunch of guns if they have any in the household). So by virtue of the numbers, about half of gun owners in the US are democrats or independents (or don't GAF about voting so never registered).

ONLY a mentally ill person would buy a product and then vote to ban it. Sorry but mental illness is grounds for prohibition. So no lefty should ever be allowed to own a firearm.

 

[lazarus]

I would love to know your sources for your statistics.

I expect the old saying that 80% of statistics stated on the internet are made up, is in play. My expectations are that the majority of firearms in the US are not in the hands of who registered them most recently, through inheritance, gifting, illegal sales, and theft, many older guns are in unknown hands.

Which part? Go do a google source and you can find the statistics on voter registration figures easily as well as gun ownership rates by political persuasion. It isn't like it is some hidden information. I went through the first 3 sources I found for both and they both agreed within a couple of percentage points of each other. Probably differing mostly by when as they varied from late 2010s to I think 2021 was the most recent.

 

[lazarus]

ONLY a mentally ill person would buy a product and then vote to ban it. Sorry but mental illness is grounds for prohibition. So no lefty should ever be allowed to own a firearm.

I agree with you there. Nuts in states with citizen ballots that have pushed bans and then voted for them are nuts.

But most gun laws have been passed by politicians. Nobody gets to vote for the issues those politicians vote for in a representative democracy.

More gun owners, more people pushing their representatives towards gun rights.

How many DINOs we have on here? I seem to recall there being a running thread on that even. Your average election a fantastic turn out is 60%. Most are 30-40%. A quarter of those 18 and older aren't registered to vote and likely never will be.

If it is about buying a product, using a service, getting a benefit, and then voting against it, well shit, like 90% of voters probably need to be locked up. Both sides. Because politicians that "represent" the political party they are registered under or they've voted for have voted against that person's interests. At least once. Likely many times. Straight up voted again benefits they get. Things they believe in. Etc. Again that whole no true scottsman thing. Go that route, no politician should ever be elected and we need direct democracy, because no representative you vote for will ever represent you 100% on everything everytime (or you aren't paying attention or don't actually understand).

 

[Troublesbrewin]

Which part? Go do a google source and you can find the statistics on voter registration figures easily as well as gun ownership rates by political persuasion. It isn't like it is some hidden information. I went through the first 3 sources I found for both and they both agreed within a couple of percentage points of each other. Probably differing mostly by when as they varied from late 2010s to I think 2021 was the most recent.

Telling me to google for YOUR references is utter ********. You may trust the media or college studies, which are based on ideologies of nonsense. I was hoping to better understand, if your logic is trustworthy by reading your sources and seeing who may have funded your referenced college studies.
Now, I know better than to even bother interacting with your opinions.