Active Shooter Killed At Nashville School

#3,351
#3,351
Franklin Pierce said:
The Mirror Savaged for Since-Deleted Profiling Nashville Shooting Suspect as 'Whimsical' and 'Childlike'

With one of the worst takes on Monday's shooting that took place at the Covenant School in Nashville, the Mirror has reminded how it is indeed a tabloid. In an article which no longer exists on the site--there's an error message--the tabloid provided a profile of the suspect, Audrey Hale, going in depth about what her art teacher told them, including how she was "whimsical" and "childlike."


It appears that great lengths were taken to scrub such a take, since archived versions of the article still show the error message. The Mirror also appears to tried to do so quietly, without a note about the deleted article or accompanying tweets. So, they went with such a heinous tweet, and then tried to cover it up. People kept the receipts though.

The Mirror Savaged for Since-Deleted Profiling Nashville Shooting Suspect as 'Whimsical' and 'Childlike'
Click to expand...

As the judge sentenced Ted Bundy to death, he said similar things of him and he could've done a lot of good for the world (paraphrasing) He's in the same place as this scumbag. You forfeit any good being mentioned about you when you take the lives of innocent people, especially children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Orangeslice13 and marcusluvsvols
#3,352
#3,352
luthervol said:
Please do better
Click to expand...
It’s as if your being deliberately obtuse.

If there’s 400 million guns in circulation today your legislation does not reduce that number. Instead of 417 million next year there’s 413 million. You have done nothing to reduce the number of guns currently in circulation which according to the gun grabbers is the problem. Too accessible. Too easy to purchase. So the 2nd amendment will continue to be under assault because your legislation does not reduce gun crime and further draconian gun grabbing arguments will be proposed by the likes of you.

And even if your personal intentions are benign and pure of heart, you’re suggesting the first two of three steps the gun grabbers have said are needed for confiscation. Why would any 2nd amendment supporter agree to that?
 
#3,353
#3,353
InVOLuntary said:
The founders intent was obvious. The reason for the 2nd amendment wasn't for hunting, it wasn't for home defense. The second amendment was to keep government in check. It was to have a populace that could fight back against a tyrannical government, a government similar to that they fought for independence. So given that intent, it only makes sense that they meant weapons similar to what the government had at the time. AR15s don't even come close to that standard today.
Click to expand...

To demonstrate the necessity of the 2nd amendment. A group of people (not the normal brand) went to the capitol to let congress know they were unhappy with how things were being conducted. They were branded as rioters and seditionists, and some have been jailed. The interesting part appears to be that none were armed, but one was shot and killed by a government employee. There's sound argument and evidence that government isn't listening in spite of the 1st amendment. Makes you wonder if there is thought of eliminating one amendment in order to remove the first one.

Ironically the whole incident was set in motion by changing election laws to give one group of people an edge over others while normalcy in many parts of the country was curtailed by "emergency powers" ordered by governments. Of course, the arguments are that governments were protecting people and the changes in election law didn't favor any group ... they just enabled people to surreptitiously avoid normal checks and balances that kept elections reasonably fair and honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 82_VOL_83, Orangeburst and 6 others
#3,358
#3,358
More is coming out about the shooter’s past interactions with her former middle school basketball team mates. It sounds like she was stalking some of her former team and was obsessed with them. She must have really struggled with maintaining friendships.
I heard Dan Bongino talk about these people that do these targeted attacks. He said there are always multiple warning signs that these people are dangerous, and that in hindsight people realize all the clues that they ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#3,359
#3,359
davethevol said:
More is coming out about the shooter’s past interactions with her former middle school basketball team mates. It sounds like she was stalking some of her former team and was obsessed with them. She must have really struggled with maintaining friendships.
I heard Dan Bongino talk about these people that do these targeted attacks. He said there are always multiple warning signs that these people are dangerous, and that in hindsight people realize all the clues that they ignored.
Click to expand...
It's more evidence that gender dysphoria is a mental illness that should be treated. I have no doubt there's some physiological or chemical imbalance that causes this. I've wondered why the perceived solution is to lop off body parts to match the mental illness instead of trying to match the mind to the physical body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
#3,363
#3,363
luthervol said:
They are obviously participating in criminal activity, but they find it so easy and risk free, they have no qualm making that choice.
If it wasn't as easy, and the risk were greater - fewer would do it.
Yes a registry will stop many.
Like the laws against criminal behavior.
And yes it will reduce numbers of guns sold.

And no, unfortunately it is not just you, there are many who also have great difficult grasping relatively simple concepts.

The stance you guys take is so simplistic it's laughable. Top it off with the fact you actually think the stance is defendable, and it starts to become just sad.

Criminals break laws so laws don't stop criminals may be the single most stupid concept in the whole debate. Are you guys 6?
Click to expand...

First, it sounds as though your problem is with DAs, Judges and legislators on the left who bring no/inadequate charges, statute penalties, and courtroom sentencing. The Congressional Black Caucus has been a stiff opponent of stiffer gun sentences...because 'white supremacy', I guess.

How many will it stop - a percentage will do - and what is the evidence for it?

It will not reduce the number of guns sold to legitimate buyers. I see you explain yourself later in the thread after this post, that you want to restrict criminal RESALE. That contradicts your earlier assertion though, that you want to reduce guns period, that if there were 300 million rather than 400, there'd be less crime; it'd be a "better and safer"place. It's laughable you couldn't explain your simple-minded concept instead of waiting for everyone to read your mind, then react like a tw*t about it.

About that: during the greatest increase in gun circulation in this country of the last three decades, in which numbers may have tripleed; violent crime of all types has fallen. Murder fell to about half its peak of the early-1990s. United States Crime Rates 1960 t0 2019 So it seems you're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, that is, More Guns = More Crime. Actually, the inverse is true.

So, your proposition is your assumption, not borne out by the evidence. It assumes that a registry will prohibit criminal acquisition when it may simply be that law-abiding people don't sell to criminals purposely, even if they're a acquaintance or relative. It presumes that a person who would knowingly sell to a criminal, won[t do so because they aren't selling an illegal, unregistered weapon, but a registered one. Even you can see the fault there. I don't know - perhaps a pittance will be deterred but there's no evidence for it. If I were such a person and the gun traced to me, I'd feign shock and say "let's go take a look where I keep it" and "Damn! - it's gone!"

As you can see, I didn't state or imply "criminals shouldn't be stopped" or there should be no criminal laws; that's some crazy shite buzzing around in your own head. I argue that stupid laws are worse than none, because they displace measures that might actually help without without infringing on rights. Perhaps you can have a 6 yo read the response for you and explain it before you pipe off.
 
Last edited:
#3,365
#3,365
I'm looking forward to the amount of attention given to the mental health crisis at the CMAs, as this one really hit home.
 
#3,366
#3,366
davethevol said:
More is coming out about the shooter’s past interactions with her former middle school basketball team mates. It sounds like she was stalking some of her former team and was obsessed with them. She must have really struggled with maintaining friendships.
I heard Dan Bongino talk about these people that do these targeted attacks. He said there are always multiple warning signs that these people are dangerous, and that in hindsight people realize all the clues that they ignored.
Click to expand...
There are tens of thousands of people exhibiting these behaviors daily. So what do you suggest be done to these tens of thousands? Take their guns? You would need some sort of registry to even know what guns to take.
 
#3,369
#3,369
luthervol said:
They are obviously participating in criminal activity, but they find it so easy and risk free, they have no qualm making that choice.
If it wasn't as easy, and the risk were greater - fewer would do it.
Yes a registry will stop many.
Like the laws against criminal behavior.
And yes it will reduce numbers of guns sold.

And no, unfortunately it is not just you, there are many who also have great difficult grasping relatively simple concepts.

The stance you guys take is so simplistic it's laughable. Top it off with the fact you actually think the stance is defendable, and it starts to become just sad.

Criminals break laws so laws don't stop criminals may be the single most stupid concept in the whole debate. Are you guys 6?
Click to expand...
Criminals break laws? You mean like stealing guns and reselling them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,371
#3,371
Carl Pickens said:
Criminals break laws? You mean like stealing guns and reselling them?
Click to expand...
Yep, and 2 + 2 = 4 and the sun rises in the east.

That's why you need laws and regulations that make some answer "no" when they ask themselves this question:
"Do I want to break this law and become a criminal, is the reward worth the risk.?

We all know that some will always answer "yes', nothing can be done to change that; but the more that answer "no" the better.
 
#3,374
#3,374
luthervol said:
Yep, and 2 + 2 = 4 and the sun rises in the east.

That's why you need laws and regulations that make some answer "no" when they ask themselves this question:
"Do I want to break this law and become a criminal, is the reward worth the risk.?

We all know that some will always answer "yes', nothing can be done to change that; but the more that answer "no" the better.
Click to expand...
Of all gun crimes committed, what percentage would you guess is committed by those that would answer “no”?
 
#3,375
#3,375
Carl Pickens said:
Of all gun crimes committed, what percentage would you guess is committed by those that would answer “no”?
Click to expand...
Of all the gun crimes not committed, what percentage would you guess is not committed by those that would answer "no"?

And the answer to both of those questions is fluid.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top