Routine Traffic Stop leads to 7 dead - in Odessa

How do you know this ? Twirling around in a circle crying "False False" is not an argument for much.

 

lol ...

No, a gun is not similar to a first aid kit!!

 

Sure it is. Both are anticipated to be used in an emergency (at least when the gun is carried in public).

How do you figure that if I carry a gun in public, that I am not "free"? What rights am I giving away?

 

Just saying "true, true" is not much of an argument either.

 

Correct - which is why the OP - and numerous other of my posts give rational that backs up my claim.

 

I agree that it could be a trigger (but so could a million other things), but not the cause. No offense, but your rationals for it being "a cause" were kind of weak.

 

I'll have to say I liked that answer better than your version of mass murder being the logical result of the psychic weight of having to live in America with all our laws and such.

 

Not sure which rational you are referring to- especially since I did not claim that the traffic stop was the only reason for the rampage.

If you know why he did it -- do share.

Question - if the fellow had not been stopped - do you think he would have shot all those people that day ?

 

Who knows...maybe....maybe not.

Are you suggesting that police should not pull people over because of traffic violations because they might go on a murder rampage?

 

Like many things, this comes down to the cost to society and differences of place.

I know there are a lot of places where your version works today. Wyoming, for example. I know a high school in Oregon where the kids bring their rifles to school, because they are all going hunting after the final bell rings. They check their weapons at the door and all is cool. (I'm not actually sure they allow this today, but that's sure the way it was some years back.)

However, the prey in our cities is human, not deer and coyotes.

Those living in Wyoming are saying that we who live in larger city have to allow guns even though WE are the prey.

Not all of us accept that idea.

 

So, since there are many people that drink and drive, killing just about as many people that are murdered by guns (if not more), should cars be banned using the same logic? What is different between the two....other than a car can certainly be a necessity.

I believe you are talking about Burns....or maybe Mitchell. Kids in Oregon are not allowed to even bring a gun to school anymore, anywhere in the state.

 

I'm saying that if you need to prepare for a firefight when you leave your home, you aren't free.

People who are free don't have to do that.

 

Then in that case, none of us are free. "Preparing for a firefight" is hyperbole. When I carry (CHL), I am not "preparing for a firefight" any more than , carrying a first aide kit to preparing for an accident. There is a difference between "Preparing for" and "Being Prepared".

 

Hey, you know some Oregon! I was referring to Siletz - on the coast. A good friend of mine taught HS there for a while. I would believe the state doesn't allow them to do that anymore, and with Oregon's education system I believe that would be a state level decision.

People in America are essentially required to drive their own transportation. My daughter and son in law don't drive, and that's a significant issue when choosing where to live.

I agree we don't go after drunks hard enough.

 

I don't want to play games here.

I pointed out that there are very different locations in the US. Someone in Burns, OR is not exposed to what I am exposed to here in Seattle - even though this is a pretty darn safe city if you don't run into police while black.

If I lived in Burns, I might well carry a good deer rifle in my pickup rack. Here in Seattle, anyone walking around with and AK is a full ass hat lunatic as far as I can tell.

 

Westside Oregon boy myself. All my life.

The AR-15 is nothing more than a "scary" looking semi-automatic. It is not much different than a semi-automatic 9mm handgun. The size of the magazine is irrelevant as is it quick to reload a 9mm. Once guns like the AR-15 are banned, how long do you think it will take to go after semi-automatic handguns? Heck, they tried hard to ban semi-automatic handguns in the '70s and '80s.

Do you think people that have a desire to kill people in public places will suddenly stop because they can't use an AR-15. Personally, I would rather they have an AR-15. They would be easy to pick out in a crowd.

I'm not playing games. I am having a discussion.

I am not against a city having their own "gun laws" as long as it does not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. IMO, background checks are reasonable. Gun registrations within a city limits are reasonable.

 

Gun laws are ALWAYS going to affect law abiding citizens. You can't say you are ok as long as it doesn't affect you. It WILL affect you.

Seattle can't write much of ANY laws concerning guns, because the NRA and others have sued pretty much every city that has tried - and won.

I agree that some law against AK type weapons isn't the full solution. I don't believe any single move will be a solution - it's going to take a family of such solutions.

If we were to go so far as to ban AKs, the NRA, manufacturers, and hangers on will point the way to other weapons that will probably be equally effective in slaughtering people in synagogues, shopping malls, schools, etc. It IS going to take more.

 

If they won their case, then apparently they had merit.

There is a solution. Red Flag laws....but they have to be done in such a way as to not violate due process. Guns can not be arbitrarily taken away just to be "on the safe side". Kids that have trouble in school (suspensions with violence involved, extreme violent or abnormal disruptive attitude, etc) need to be reported and obtain mandatory therapy.

Life is rough. People will kill people.....no matter what. Until our attitudes change from being outraged all the time, it will happen.

 

I have not suggested anything of the sort... Go read the OP more carefully.

 

Well, there are really only 2 options:

1. Pull them over.
2. Not pull them over.

The argument of "sometimes the cops pull people over and just says they did not use their turn signal, when they did" has no validity, unless you can show that this was the case in this incident.

 

The point here is that your suggestion is a fail.

No, that's NOT a solution.

And, people won't stop until there IS a solution.

Our safety is more important that any gun right. We do have a right to life and liberty. We do NOT have to tolerate people wandering the city, the stores, the churches, the schools and slaughter the people who are there..

 

Nonsense. Voter fraud is rare and typically involves someone voting in the wrong district because they moved and did not update their voter registration.

That said I do believe all voters should be required to positively identify themselves. When claims are made that many poor people cannot provide such documents, my response is why not? Seriously, what are the impediments? How can they be corrected? What help do poor Americans need to be able to vote?

I see no reason to reduce the security of the voting system when the problem is one of failing to work out the difficulties in keeping it secure and as fully participated in as possible.

 

So damn everybody else's rights, yours are much more important? Your chance of being involved in a mass shooting are very low. You voluntary take more probable risks every single day.

The problem with taking rights away, is that it does not stop.

So, you and your wife just had a romantic dinner and are walking to your car. A mugger steps out and wants your money. What will you do? Personally, I would not want to take a chance that all he would take is our money. In a large city like Seattle, you likely run the risk of seeing that mugger than you do to see a mass shooting.

 

Oregon, Washington and Colorado vote by mail. There is NO WAY for voters to have their ID checked, since we do it whenever we want during the last two weeks before the election date. At night, with the internet available to look up info? Of course! Call a friend? Why not?

When I vote in Washington I get a ballot that is ONLY good if signed by ME. Nobody else can use it. I sign my ballot as I would a check, and that signature is checked against my voter registration signature. If it doesn't match, I get notified.

Our system is highly secure. Nobody can vote if they aren't registered, because ballots are created for registered voters only. I can look online to ensure my ballot was counted. My ballot IS a paper trail.

Also, there are NO polling places, no poll watchers, no failure to fairly distribute equipment, no lines (at all), no hanging chads or busted equipment, no absurd polling place locations, no idiots who don't know the law, no false publication of misleading places and times.

And, it's cheaper for the state!!



The very idea that there are people who have to travel to polling places to wait in line and get screwed in the many ways available simply drives me CRAZY.

The idea that there are "absentee ballot" systems in all states, yet those systems are NOT secure enough for everyone to use drives me CRAZY.

We need to care about our democracy. Ignoring the attacks from Russia as Republicans require is bad enough.

(sorry for the rant)

 

Dont cops say 'no such thing as a routine traffic stop? This case reinforces, just that.