Not much outrage regarding the YouTube shooter

[Rogue Hawk]

I wonder why that is? Particularly since so much attention has been drawn to these loony tunes lately.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...404-story.html

[Holly]

Lets just say this woman doesn't fit the narrative of certain organizations and I will leave it at that..........

[BlueBayou]

If she was wearing an NRA t-shirt people would still be marching and protesting.

[UtahPete]

I wonder why that is? Particularly since so much attention has been drawn to these loony tunes lately. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...404-story.html

Yes, you are correct.

[Bob Denman]

From what little bit that I've been able to read about it: she was just ticked-off because they weren't paying her for her videos anymore...
The popular press doesn't like to rally around "greed"...

[UtahPete]

Y'all need to get out and ride more. Or shoot guns or whatever will get you away from the computer.

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

[UtahPete]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

I'm sure someone does.

[Rogue Hawk]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

I assume it's because it's an old reference.

[Bob Denman]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

Because their delivery is no longer reliable, or swift...

[Holly]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

The kiddies don't like words or phrases that might require safe spaces, counseling and prescription medicine.

[MR. H1956]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

Because it wasn't a post office.

[asp125]

how come no one uses the term "going postal" anymore?

Because there's no political reference in "postal". Now you have to insert the terms "liberal" or "conservative" to get any sort of reaction from snowflakes on each side.

[Rogue Hawk]

Yes, you are correct.

There needs to be a reliable way to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people. So this should get more attention.

[RinconRyder]

There needs to be a reliable way to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people. So this should get more attention.

Two questions as to why this approach will not work full time:

1. How to you ascertain an individual is "unstable" and is apt to become violent? When does "quirkiness" become "unstable"?

2. How do we stop an individual with no history of mental illness or violence?

The answer to both is.....you cannot. First time shooters will never be caught before they act. The only possible action is to remove the most dangerous weapons so it limits their destructiveness and prepare law enforcement to react with speed and firepower.

One thing that would help immensely is to require background checks on every purchase of a firearm/ammo with no "escape" provisions. If nothing else this would create a paper trail for someone who is stockpiling arms or ammunition.

[Rogue Hawk]

Two questions as to why this approach will not work full time:

1. How to you ascertain an individual is "unstable" and is apt to become violent? When does "quirkiness" become "unstable"?

2. How do we stop an individual with no history of mental illness or violence?

The answer to both is.....you cannot. First time shooters will never be caught before they act. The only possible action is to remove the most dangerous weapons so it limits their destructiveness and prepare law enforcement to react with speed and firepower.

One thing that would help immensely is to require background checks on every purchase of a firearm/ammo with no "escape" provisions. If nothing else this would create a paper trail for someone who is stockpiling arms or ammunition.

True, we can't catch them all. But we can do our best. It also has to be done in such a way it does not trample the rights of responsible owners.

[ES44AC]

True, we can't catch them all. But we can do our best. It also has to be done in such a way it does not trample the rights of responsible owners.

I fully agree.

[RinconRyder]

True, we can't catch them all. But we can do our best. It also has to be done in such a way it does not trample the rights of responsible owners.

Realistically I don't see how that is close to possible. For each doctor who will state someone is unstable there is another who will disagree. How is a court supposed to decide? The medical profession has lots of trouble deciding just what is mental illness and then what is apt to lead to violent behavior. We would be convicting someone before they committed any crime and stigmatizing them for life by declaring they are "unstable" (meanwhile, felons who did not commit violent acts are prohibited from owning firearms).

And in the case of the LV shooter.....wasn't he a "responsible owner" until he massacred 58 people?

[UtahPete]

True, we can't catch them all. But we can do our best. It also has to be done in such a way it does not trample the rights of responsible owners.

Sounds easy enough. Explain exactly how you would do that.

[ES44AC]

We need to put unstable people in insane asylums again to keep them off the streets. This was bad press for Google/YouTube. I'm sure they want this to go away so they can bash the Conservatives again and push their liberal agenda.

If you are White, Male ,Christian and a gun owner you are labeled daily as pure evil.

I believe evil people come in every color ,every nation, and every ethnic group. If you have an evil heart and evil corrupt mind that is the problem and you deserve no pity.

This gentleman Mark said what most of the law abiding citizens are thinking.

[ARtraveler]

I thought my daily trip to the mail box was considered going postal. Now that summer is on...I also get to go Spyder for close to a hundred miles in conjunction with going postal.