Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A good guy with a gun.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G David Bock
    replied
    A bit more on this one, excerpts:
    ....
    Police sources identified the gunman in a standoff at a Tioga apartment building that left six police officers injured as Maurice Hill, 36, a Philadelphia man with a lengthy history of gun convictions and of resisting attempts to bring him to justice.

    The police sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak. Reached by phone about 9:30 p.m. Thursday evening, Shaka Mzee Johnson, the lawyer who most recently represented Hill, confirmed Hill had a connection to the standoff.

    “My client is requesting me to come to the scene,” he said.

    GOPUSA Editor’s Note: Philly mayor Jim Kenney immediately takes advantage of the shooting to call for gun control in press conference.
    ...
    Hill’s history in the adult criminal justice system began in 2001 when he was 18 and was arrested with a gun that had an altered serial number.

    Public records show that he has been arrested about a dozen times since turning 18, and convicted six times on charges that involved illegal possession of guns, drug dealing, and aggravated assault. He has been in and out of prison; the longest sentence handed him came in 2010, when a federal judge gave him a 55-month term.

    And, his record would indicate, he does not like to go to prison. In 2008, he was convicted of escaping, fleeing from police, and resisting arrest. Along the way, he beat criminal charges on everything from kidnapping to attempted murder.

    Hill also spent time in federal prison. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to federal firearms violations after he was caught with a Smith & Wesson .357 and later a Taurus PT .45 semiautomatic. His prior felony convictions should have barred him from owning those weapons. U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond sentenced him to four years and seven months in prison.

    More recently, Hill was convicted of perjury in 2013 and sentenced to seven years of probation. He appeared before Common Pleas Court Judge Rayford Means for three different alleged violations of probation — at least two of them related to new cases, which he later beat.
    ...
    http://www.gopusa.com/?p=74382?omhide=true

    This person sounds like one in serious need of karma recycling. Too bad he didn't go via "suicide by police".

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    how about a good gun with a bad guy?
    That would be this;
    Gunman wounds at least 6 Philadelphia police; 2 others freed...

    Crowd Taunts Officers, Laugh At Them...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    Your use of the Congressmen getting shot up is not a good comparison. The shooter had a goal. The usual mass shooter has no goal and seldom even know the people they shoot at. Just targets and get as many as possible. Total stranges and inncoent vicitms
    But the congressmen were strangers to him and innocent as well.
    They may not have been quite as random, but there was no sane reason for him to decide to try and kill them.
    Clearly, the man was mentally ill.
    Please note that at no point am I attempting to blame his actions on being democrat (he apparently was affiliated with durbin's office or campaign) or even the rhetoric coming from the left.

    Even if there is hateful rhetoric coming from the left, I think that it would only influence a person who is already mentally ill.

    I think we all agree that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns, the problem is accomplishing that goal in a legal manner.
    At this point, I do not trust politicians to handle that issue as the definition of mentally ill is already being corrupted in order to accomplish political goals. (I will support if needed)

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


    Agreed. It certainly seems that way.
    Your use of the Congressmen getting shot up is not a good comparison. The shooter had a goal. The usual mass shooter has no goal and seldom even know the people they shoot at. Just targets and get as many as possible. Total stranges and inncoent vicitms

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    The problem is that often the crime is perpetrated not to solve a personal problem but for external "political" reasons. When an extreme political position becomes a mental illness is rather difficult to determine although in the current ever more polarised world one does wonder if the asylum doors have been unlocked.

    Agreed. It certainly seems that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    The problem is that often the crime is perpetrated not to solve a personal problem but for external "political" reasons. When an extreme political position becomes a mental illness is rather difficult to determine although in the current ever more polarised world one does wonder if the asylum doors have been unlocked.
    I don't think we live in a more polarized world. Certainly nothing like the past. However, our ability to communicate with others all around the world has exploded in Supernova like orders of magnitude. Could you imagine what Americans and Brits would be saying to one another during WWII?

    That said, I think it will take a few generations before we are able to psychological cope with the telecommunications revolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    well, the democrat who tried to kiil republican congressmen for political reasons was probably mentally ill and his crime is not proof that all democrats are mentally ill.
    I would submit that anyone who feels the solutions to his problems involves shooting others, even if they are republicans, is mentally ill.
    I didn't say that all violent people are mentally ill, but am comfortable saying that all mass shooters are mentally ill.
    The problem is that often the crime is perpetrated not to solve a personal problem but for external "political" reasons. When an extreme political position becomes a mental illness is rather difficult to determine although in the current ever more polarised world one does wonder if the asylum doors have been unlocked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jutland
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

    Are you saying that people that shoot up the public are perfectly normal, I don't think so, no matter what their beliefs are.
    Nah they are just American

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post

    Are you saying that people that shoot up the public are perfectly normal, I don't think so, no matter what their beliefs are.
    Ah, but no one single person can ever be characterized as "perfectly normal." In fact, most of these mass shooters are perfectly normal, even the "angry" ones, as nearly every person on the planet is "angry" at one point or another. I would go so far to say that each and every one of us is capable of this type of crime, but obviously the vast majority never cross the threshold. I find it is interesting that most of these shooters are quite young and immature. As the rise in the mass killerers (though it has happened before, it was a rare event) looks to be something that has occurred over the last 30 years (say two generations), which speaks to some underlying cause that has affected those generations (collectively termed "Millennials"), and since guns existed, and were even more easily attained prior to the advent of the Millennials it stands to reason there is some other greater underlying cause, which the "Gun Control Now" crowd completely ignores. Then again, it is human nature to ignore the complex for the simple.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    But wouldn't one who commits one of these seemingly motiveless mass murders be manifesting some form of mental illness? I mean, do mentally and emotionally healthy people shoot up random public spaces?

    Mental disorder is probably a more accurate phrase. In their minds there is always a "rational" reason. The problem, though, is that it is almost utterly undetectable as mind readers are sci-fi and not reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

    Turkey feathers! Most all of the mass shooters have used legally own weapons and most had no criminal record.
    That may be true John, but they also make up less then a 1/1000th of a percent of annual murders. While most criminals are indeed stupid, the vast majority are not so stupid as to purchase a gun that can be traced back to them.

    Gun bans do nothing to study the underlying causes of all these mass shooters. A phenomenon that is relatively recent; primarily dating back to the '90s. Coincidentally that was the time of the rise of mass 24/7 media, the internet, and the first group of Millenials (which most of these shooters are).

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    A gross generalisation. Some mass shooters are extremists who do it in support of their extreme political/racist/religious beliefs. Some "common" criminals are mentally ill. Not all mentally ill are violent and not all violent people are mentally ill
    well, the democrat who tried to kiil republican congressmen for political reasons was probably mentally ill and his crime is not proof that all democrats are mentally ill.
    I would submit that anyone who feels the solutions to his problems involves shooting others, even if they are republicans, is mentally ill.
    I didn't say that all violent people are mentally ill, but am comfortable saying that all mass shooters are mentally ill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    A gross generalisation. Some mass shooters are extremists who do it in support of their extreme political/racist/religious beliefs. Some "common" criminals are mentally ill. Not all mentally ill are violent and not all violent people are mentally ill
    Are you saying that people that shoot up the public are perfectly normal, I don't think so, no matter what their beliefs are.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    A gross generalisation. Some mass shooters are extremists who do it in support of their extreme political/racist/religious beliefs. Some "common" criminals are mentally ill. Not all mentally ill are violent and not all violent people are mentally ill
    But wouldn't one who commits one of these seemingly motiveless mass murders be manifesting some form of mental illness? I mean, do mentally and emotionally healthy people shoot up random public spaces?

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    I note you keep saying "mass shooters" as if they are the same thing as the criminal shooters that I have been talking about.
    Mass shooters are a problem, but not the cause of most murders. Not by a long stretch.

    Mass shooters are mentally ill.
    Mentally ill people shouldn't own guns, the problem is that there is no legal way to prevent a person who might become mentally ill from owning a gun.
    Please note my emphasis is on the word "legal".
    A gross generalisation. Some mass shooters are extremists who do it in support of their extreme political/racist/religious beliefs. Some "common" criminals are mentally ill. Not all mentally ill are violent and not all violent people are mentally ill

    All generalisations are dangerous, even this one. Alexandre Dumas fils

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X