Mass shooting thwarted, liberal media ignores it

[coredumped]

What the liberal media won't tell you. Mass shooting thwarted by concealed carry citizen:

The shooting happened around 3:30 a.m. at Playoffz nightclub on Inman Road in Lyman.

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.
"His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg," Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won't be facing any charges.

http://m.wistv.com/wistv/db_344871/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=K9OUD2EU

[avonjax]

I have a feeling that this kind of event happens everywhere all the time. Did you expect this to make national news? Is that why you are accusing the "Liberal Media" of ignoring it? Wow you are digging really hard on this one.

[coredumped]

How? The 4th victim fired back and ended it. Maybe if victims 1 through 3 had guns it would have been stopped a lot sooner.
Basically, for all the"let's ban guns BS" there's lots of stories like this. You just won't see them on CNN, MSNBC for the next 4 weeks.

[coredumped]

So how, by any definition, was this not a mass shooting?  It wasn't thwarted, it happened.

I think you are mistaking the idea that the mass shooter was also shot to death with the idea that it didn't happen at all.

In fact in this case, you actually added a second shooter.

Now that more information has come to light, what you are actually describing is a shootout between two rival groups over a disagreement inside a kind of sneezy nightclub.  Who knows what it was over.

The person who returned fire was the person that Thompson shot at and missed, and he had time to do it because Thompson was out of bullets.

Well, it's not a mass shooting by the "Congressional Research Service" which says:
"he United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people"

So while not widely accepted, generally it must be 4 or more, had he have shot more people, it would have been a mass shooting by this definition.

Are we going to be treated to these announcements over every street shootout?

Yes, as long as you post things like "As the Republicans Crumble, They are still wreaking Damage on the Government"
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?topic=27085.0

Don't be afraid of a different opinion.

[finehoe]

LOL.  The implication that this was another potential Orlando incident that was thwarted reeks of desperation. In actuality it is just another example of false equivalency.

Perhaps that is why no one but the local FOX affiliate picked it up.

[MusicMan]

You're not going to believe this, but in the US we have more guns (per person) than any other developed country on Earth. We also have more people shot on a daily basis than any other developed country on Earth. Strange correlation, huh? 

The hysterical POV put forth by the gun lobby that more guns will make us safer is so farcical as to be preposterous. 

[fsquid]

You're not going to believe this, but in the US we have more guns (per person) than any other developed country on Earth. We also have more people shot on a daily basis than any other developed country on Earth. Strange correlation, huh? 

The hysterical POV put forth by the gun lobby that more guns will make us safer is so farcical as to be preposterous.

keeps the overcrowding down.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

You're not going to believe this, but in the US we have more guns (per person) than any other developed country on Earth. We also have more people shot on a daily basis than any other developed country on Earth. Strange correlation, huh? 

The hysterical POV put forth by the gun lobby that more guns will make us safer is so farcical as to be preposterous.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but go back and take gun-related suicides/attempted suicides out of the equation.   Our per-capita number on gun related instances drops dramatically.

And I'm not sure if you're talking about gun deaths or just shootings in general, but for comparison sake I have to note that we have lots of people hurt/killed in car accidents, too.

[finehoe]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but go back and take gun-related suicides/attempted suicides out of the equation.   Our per-capita number on gun related instances drops dramatically.

And I'm not sure if you're talking about gun deaths or just shootings in general, but for comparison sake I have to note that we have lots of people hurt/killed in car accidents, too.

Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2815%2901030-X/fulltext

Automobile-related deaths are irrelevant.

[Snaketoz]

coredump,

are you serious?  he didn't stop it.  And what if they perp had a AR15 or the like?  So foolish.

And liberal media give me a freaking break.  On a scale of 1-100, 1 being most liberal, 100 most conservative with 50 being objective:  maybe the mainstream media is like 40-45. Maybe, but hey reality skews left.  Fox news is prolly 75-90 depending if the Kraut or the like is on, and the chain email echo chamber where so many on the right get their talking points facts is trying to see if you can get more than 100.

so tired of people acting like CBS or ABC is some liberal mouthpiece.  Often, but not always, MSNBC, mediamatters type stuff, ok they skew left.  But at least they admit it.  The right wing media is SOOOOOOOOOO much more extreme, and to boot they have the gall to claim they're just being "fair and balanced" or whatever

Fair and balanced in not disturbing their viewers' disturbing world views?  Yeah i'll give them that I guess

X infinity

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but go back and take gun-related suicides/attempted suicides out of the equation.   Our per-capita number on gun related instances drops dramatically.

And I'm not sure if you're talking about gun deaths or just shootings in general, but for comparison sake I have to note that we have lots of people hurt/killed in car accidents, too.

Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2815%2901030-X/fulltext

Automobile-related deaths are irrelevant.

Again, I'm not saying that we don't have a problem, but comparisons like the one posted can be swayed to fit damn near any narrative. 

Besides the fact that most of the gun-control discussion revolves around semi-automatic rifles, almost 70% of murders are committed with handguns. https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

If using automobiles as a reference point when discussing guns, then why did our esteemed POTUS use the same reference when discussing ways help figure out a solution?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you/

finehoe and music man,

of course you guys are right.  the pro gun nuts have a nonsensical response to every common sense statement you will make.  they're well trained in this.  save your skull and the nearest wall some damage and just walk away

I'm far from a 'gun nut'.  So I'll just copy and paste my where I derive my opinion from from a few days ago:

I really don't like wading into the waters of 'gun control' because everyone that I know who carry are 'responsible' owners.  Most have concealed carry permits and I'm not aware of any instance that any of them had to use their gun in self-defense.  So IMO, it's like any other item people carry in case of emergency and it's a 'better to have and not need' type of issue.

That said, I grew up around guns:  Rifles, shotguns, pistols and even a musket.  I also grew up in a rural area in SC similar to Hilliard, FL.  There were approximately 20 and they stayed in a case, along with the ammo and cleaning kits.  They weren't touched by anyone in the house unless we had permission to go shoot.  That was one of those rules that my brothers and I never tried to bend, and I can't explain why we didn't test that one out any better than I can explain why there were so many rules that we couldn't care less about following.   

So with that nugget of NRW history, I oppose any ban on firearms.  The majority of the firearm deaths in the USA are handguns, and a good portion of those deaths are suicides  I know they don't have the media appeal of a fierce looking AR-15 decked out in all it's glory, but that's a media-made issue and not a real-life issue.  As it's been mentioned earlier in the thread and in many, many other places, the differences between what's labeled as an assault rifle and your stereo-typical gran-daddy's hunting rifle are mostly cosmetic. 

I do believe that a more stringent process for acquiring guns would be a good first step, and that step would need to be enforced at all levels of purchasing, whether it be owner to owner, owner to dealer or dealer to owner. 

A solid second-step would be figuring out a way to start eliminating all of the illegal guns that are already on the street.  I don't even have an idea on how to encourage people (read:  criminals if the guns were gotten illegally) to turn them in, but that's an issue all and of itself. 

Thirdly, and this goes against some of my principles on the matter in general, would be to dis-allow ownership of guns with removable clips and to figure out some sort of cap to prevent some ingenious engineering to fit more rounds somewhere inside of the gun.  Most every firearm has an internal area to store rounds ranging from 3/4-14.  Most all of them have removable clips for easy loading, but those can be replaced with high-capacity clips with ZERO modification to the weapon.  If you eliminated that aspect, then it wouldn't be impossible to reconfigure the weapon, but it wouldn't be as easy.

Edit:  On my 'removable clip' comment, I do realize that would require manufacturers to completely change their production methods - basically re-engineering 99% of what they sell.  Because aside from revolvers and shotguns, most every gun I've used has a clip that can be removed and replaced with a loaded one.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

also, how accurate are these figures?

Its pretty much against the law to track the figures, you know.

Actually yes.  Yes I do.  That's probably why I often times find myself discussing this issue from both sides when I'm with people entrenched firmly to one side or the other. 

It's also yet another segue into why I tend to bring the car discussion into play because isn't that a pretty good blueprint on how to systematically reduce the dangers?

I think that one aspect of the comparison which is used to essentially 'mic-drop' any relevant discussion is that one is a constitutional right and one is not. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

also, how accurate are these figures?

Its pretty much against the law to track the figures, you know.

Actually yes.  Yes I do.  That's probably why I often times find myself discussing this issue from both sides when I'm with people entrenched firmly to one side or the other. 

It's also yet another segue into why I tend to bring the car discussion into play because isn't that a pretty good blueprint on how to systematically reduce the dangers?

I think that one aspect of the comparison which is used to essentially 'mic-drop' any relevant discussion is that one is a constitutional right and one is not.

actually, using the same logic which takes you from second amendment to a constitutional penumbra protecting specifically guns, one could derive the same constitutional right for unregulated car ownership from the first amendment.

Penumbra....  Had to look that one up.  [tips cap]

1st amendment?  I realize some have a religious devotion to their cars;  many people talk to their cars in all manners of speech; I've never known a car to give an interview or to record any history other than it's own mileage and maintenance needs, and much to the bewilderment of the typical Avondalonite, it's quite possible to assemble without the use of a car. 

You'll have to help me out a bit on your 1A logic here.

Now regarding your second statement:

I think if the average gun cost 28 thousand dollars, and required onerous insurance, and was restricted to specially constructed environments (like a highway) built and certified for safety to the public, with as many precautions built into the design of the guns to prevent deaths, then we would be talking about a level playing field.

If you read another of my posts on the subject, you would see that I am in agreeance with you regarding more stringent entries into gun ownership.  But even though I believe that would be a step in the right direction, it does nothing to solve the issue at hand with all of the illegal firearms already on the streets.  Much like you have the fly-by-wire care dealers that will put you in a vehicle that is well below the average entry price, substandard in basic safety features and environmental health and is typically owned by those without other means who see their junker as a necessity for living no matter the technical legality of it.   

[Snaketoz]

you think your myopic knit picking is clever.  you do it all the time on this site on subjects big and small but I guess youre getting paid to be a troll so it makes sense.  I can employ your childish methods and defend anything too. nice work you're a real intellectual heavy weight.

You do know that there are other words in the English language besides myopic, right?  You seem to rely on it a lot. Frankly, it has lost its luster, and it makes your comments seem boring as well as boorish, which Im sure is hardly your intent!

Here, for your edification are a list of synonyms that you might employ in the future to improve your readability:

unimaginative, uncreative, unadventurous, narrow-minded, small-minded, short-term, shortsighted, ignorant, imperceptive, inattentive, inconsiderate, indiscriminate, injudicious, insensitive, nearsighted, neglectful, oblivious thoughtless, unaware, unconscious, undiscerning, unmindful, unobservant, unperceiving

Hopefully this list can help you can find ways to mix up your lazy, etiolated insults. 

Honestly, I seriously doubt that you could employ any of my childish methods with very much style, so in the meantime, perhaps you should stick to simple vocabulary building?

Here are a couple for you to look up.
Callow.
Shrill
Fatuous.

I have always believed that myopic means nearsighted.  (I confess, I had to look-up etiolated.)

[spuwho]

As long as we are talking the media and tragic shootings, this video was released this week.  The last living witness to see Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth the night he shot the president. Hard to fathom the 2 eras (Civil War and television) intersecting just barely.

https://www.youtube.com/v/8159DY9QJwk