[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Leg End:
I have direct experience with your specific country's government and legal system, and someone living under the whole thing, that absolutely states otherwise. The level of corruption within government to cover it's own ass is astounding and sickening.

Your direct experience means approximately nothing in the entire scheme of an entire country's worth of crime and justice, and even still it's meaningless without comparison to the USA (as if to imagine the USA doesn't have major corruption and cover-ups!)

Leg End:

A big issue I have is that people talk like without guns, murders would just suddenly take a big drop off a cliff. Nobody ever seems to consider that killings happen regardless of the tools used.

Proved in suicide statistics.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
The person he?s accusing of being paranoid isn?t Black. Also what are you suggesting. That we should shoot corrupt cops? Yeah I?m sure guns rights advocates will support that. They won?t shriek hysterically when a black man kills a cop.

Honestly, I'm speaking also to this atittude:

Seanchaidh:
I don't think that would be enough to explain it. Need to add anxiety about the possibility of slave revolt and other racial animus: white supremacy has been maintained ultimately at gunpoint.

That's a two-way street. White supremacy has been maintained ultimately at gunpoint...and conflict asymmetry, meaning gun control has also been historically used to maintain white supremacy. Hence, my pointing out the post-Cruikshank Jim Crow South, and the formal and informal forceful disarmament of black southerners. That's not an historical context that won't be ignored or whitewashed, because while I'm a pacifist I do believe historically-disadvantaged peoples have a right to proportional self-defense as does anyone, particularly against hate crime.

And, absolutely I am highly skeptical and distrustful of people who are supportive of both civilian disarmament and the security state. Especially when, bar none, the single biggest correlation to and predictor of firearm violence and death is Gini coefficient. Personally, I'm supportive of sane gun control legislation and the dismantling of the security state.

Gun control has been used historically to maintain white supremacy. Ok. I don't see how that is the case in the modern day unless you want to accuse everyone who's pro gun control of Being racist. Particularly when only one person is advocating total 2A abolition in this thread.

Also the idea of being pro gun control and security state is a head scratcher. Most gun control advocated tend to be critical of police brutality and militarization. I know I am.

Smithnikov:
He's blaming video games?! B..b..but I thought only LIBERALS did that! But he's our God Emperor! G[REDACTED] told me that Republicans are our allies in the culture war against ess jay dubyas! I'm so confused?!

Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Saelune:
I used to think we would never get back to literal concentration camps, but here we are.

If we're using the literal definition of concentration camps (that is, places to hold civilians who have not been charged or convicted of a crime), then we've never stopped using them, and most countries have them in some form. Us having "concentration camps" for processing immigrants isn't even new to Trump. If you didn't see them before 2017 that means you weren't looking.

Eacaraxe:
Personally, I'm supportive of sane gun control legislation and the dismantling of the security state.

The million dollar question is of course what you consider "sane" gun control?

Leg End:

A big issue I have is that people talk like without guns, murders would just suddenly take a big drop off a cliff. Nobody ever seems to consider that killings happen regardless of the tools used.

Well, I've never been into this 'people don't argue in good faith' on this forum. Until now.

You're literally making stuff up. I know, your just speaking from the NRA manual. Doesn't make it okay.

Gun restrictions are against gun violence. No one thinks this will cure all homicides. Please provide any evidence that anyone in history has said this. What you are saying doesn't make sense. You are trying to listen to the other side and you are making up their arguments to suit your needs

Casual Shinji:
Wow, and you really don't see a problem with this mentality? It's this level of paranoia coupled with an over abundance of firearms that breeds these kinds of situations. Where people have no trust and only fear for the government and the authorities and have guns to take the law into their own hands if need be.

Dude, we have a cheeto in office that a good chunk of the nation believes is Hitler's second coming, the odds of me calling the police and getting the three or four cops total out of god knows how many that are actually decent is not odds I would go to Vegas on, and we had one of the more well-planned shootings in history happen and it took police from another department to go in and do something at Parkland. I had an officer when I was a kid tell me that if a person attacked me, I should basically just let them because 'what damage could they do to a big guy like you?', and if I was to actually fight back, they would actually arrest me because that person was a female. I have absolutely no trust in government or authorities for good damn reason. The police are not in any way obligated to come protect you, and a good chunk of the people I've seen regarding the Parkland deputy's cowardice defend him for that fact.

aegix drakan:

Soo........How many more children need to die from fully-known awful conditions in those asylum seeker detention camps before you stop sitting there and letting the government do it...?

Or are you going to wait until they install actual gas chambers and wait until someone somehow manages to leak that fact before you stop sitting there and letting them do it? Even though by then hundreds would have been killed in that time frame?

Just wanna gauge how far that point goes for you.

When someone can actually convince me that these things are not detention centers and are intended to be extermination camps. Just going to assume as well that you're firmly in the "Trump is Hitler" camp.

If the guy already has contacts within the police, I am REALLY not sure how much good owning a gun will do unless the guy happen to be drunkenly assaulting their home without his own gun and somehow the cops don't stick up for him after he's dead and lock them up and throw away the key after the fact.

Means the next time he's attempting to commit a felony, he's not going to succeed, or be likely survive the process.

Also, if they DO need a gun, I am fine with people (with at least some safety training) owning handguns or shotguns for home defense. They don't need a shoot-5-rounds-in-6-seconds rifle.

But a 5-rounds-in-6-seconds handgun is perfectly fine?

Hell, I struggle to see why ANYONE needs a rifle like that unless they're in a warzone, or deep in wild coyote/mountain lion country, or unless 30-50 feral hogs are raising their backyard.

Take it you've never lived in an area with high gang activity?

See, I understand that instinct especially given how rotten the cops and government are in the US (and in a lot of other places too)...

But face it, if the cops really do want you dead, your gun might buy you, what an hour tops before a van of SWAT guys come in with kevlar and armor-piercing burst-fire rifles and flashbangs that they will use to murder you anyway, now even MORE motivated to kill you and anyone around you because you shot back.

And as for taking on the government...They have drones that can take you out without putting themselves at risk, not to mention tanks, missiles, a literal standing army of crack shots with long range rifles, armor, and full-auto guns. Your single gun is worthless. Heck, a full on militia army would be worthless.

The idea that gun owners will stand up to government tyranny is almost laughable because

a) The government has way more people and weapons and tech that will make any direct violence against them pointless.

b) The government has been snatching rights away and doing horrible things to people (mostly minorities, and undocumented people) for ages now, and its only been ramping up in the past few decades (NSA spying on everyone, etc), and not only have they not fought back, but the most hardline gun nuts tend to be GOP loyalists who LOVE that tyrranical shit. FFS, these kinds of nuts are the same ones who formed roving militias to go pretend to police the border (even illegally holding migrants/asylum seekers at gunpoint and lying that they were border patrol) with humvees and guns and I am SHOCKED there weren't people gunned down.

So...While the sentiment is understood, and I don't have a direct beef with YOU in particular owning a gun (although I still think having the ability to mow own 9 people in 30 seconds is unceccesary)...

I SEVERELY doubt the whole myth about 'responsible gun ownwers are the last bastion against the government when it becomes a tyranny'

I really, really don't want to go into the really, really, really longwinded and probably unwelcome discussion involving waging a war against a government, so I'm just going to say this. Your entire argument with this basically amounts to the government being so powerful, there is no point in resisting, so why bother? We have Hitler in the Oval Office, supreme court is stacked, and we have death camps within the decade. At what point in that is anything anyone does actually going to stop said Hitler? It's too late so we shouldn't even try, right? Just let it happen.

You know as well as I do that's not even close to the truth, and there is everything the common man or woman can do to fight a murderous, tyrannical government.

erttheking:

You?re not going to sit there? No. That?s exactly what you?ll do. You?ll sit there and do nothing. Hard liner 2nd amendment advocates love to talk shit. To talk about how badass they are and how they?ll take down cops and the army. And when corrupt police shoot unarmed civilians they sit there and do nothing. Hell. They defend the police. When the army kills civilians, they sit there and do nothing. Hell. They defend the army. When civil rights are violated, they sit there and do nothing. Hell. They voted for the people who cause those abuses. You will not be different.

Believe what you want.

You are not John Mclane.

No, I am not John McClane. John McClane wasn't even John McClane. John McClane was nothing more than a cop in way over his head.

You?re just a guy using internet tough guy rhetoric. If you ever witness police abuse, I promise you this.

You will sit there and do nothing.

Again, believe what you want.

Because all this abuse has been going on and I don?t see you taking up arms. You aren?t following through.

So, you're going to use that new gun of yours to do something then?

Saelune:
Ohio shooting, less than 30 seconds, 10 people killed, 27 injured. How is that better than one person being killed with a knife, maybe 1-3 others injured with cuts?

You underestimate knives. Actual point, a truck, in the span of five minutes, managed to kill 86 people and injure 458.

You don't want to talk statistics, cause you only want it when it suits you, not when it doesn't. Unless you can prove guns save more lives cause of 'good guys with guns' than injure or kill, then you have no ground to stand on.

I literally just cited the metric shitload of defensive gun uses. To think that, moderate estimate, six digits of instances haven't overtaken mass shooting deaths in protection from theft, rape, or murder is... I don't even know what to tell you.

Agema:

Your direct experience means approximately nothing in the entire scheme of an entire country's worth of crime and justice,

That makes it even worse in my mind, not better. I'm not a fan of your country's take on crime and justice. But I totally concede that's a moot point.

and even still it's meaningless without comparison to the USA (as if to imagine the USA doesn't have major corruption and cover-ups!)

I never said the USA didn't, m8.

Kwak:

Proved in suicide statistics.

Suicide proves murder?

trunkage:
Well, I've never been into this 'people don't argue in good faith' on this forum. Until now.

You're literally making stuff up. I know, your just speaking from the NRA manual. Doesn't make it okay.

Is that all this is going to boil down to? I'm some NRA robot spouting from some mythical handbook?

Gun restrictions are against gun violence. No one thinks this will cure all homicides.

Who is the one not arguing in good faith here? Re-read what I said and you will find I never said anyone thinks it'll magically cure all homicides. Probably my wording, so here's a rewording. People believe murders will drop several orders of magnitude with stricter gun control being enacted in this country. I think people will still be the same murderous assholes they were even if you could manage to enforce the restrictions desired, and then we still have the whole thing about shit cops and the apparent Neo-Nazi at the helm of the most powerful nation on Earth. Doesn't seem smart to me.

Schadrach:

Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

The one that was a big surprise to me was having our own video game media start going for it. Some of us really did become our parents.

Leg End:

Kwak:

Proved in suicide statistics.

Suicide proves murder?

Proven in that availability of guns has a direct correlation to suicide. Obviously going to impact murder. Pulling a trigger in the heat of the moment is easy. Premeditated murder will still happen, but a lot of murder, and suicides, are done in the midst of rage/emotion/depression. Add an extra step in there by changing the availability of an easy to use deadly force, yes it will make a difference.

Kwak:

Proven in that availability of guns has a direct correlation to suicide. Obviously going to impact murder. Pulling a trigger in the heat of the moment is easy. Premeditated murder will still happen, but a lot of murder, and suicides, are done in the midst of rage/emotion/depression. Add an extra step in there by changing the availability of an easy to use deadly force, yes it will make a difference.

Alright, taking that at face value. How would you accomplish that, short of actually banning civilian access to firearms and borderline eliminating the illegal market, through whatever means? How do you directly address the issue of influx suicidal emotions? How do you address the growing number of people taking the exit route of suicide by cop? How do you address any other method? I'm not seeing the issue of people that are suicidal actually being addressed. I feel like guns are being seen as the boogeyman people are blaming for people wanting to end their own life, and thinking that it just stops if they don't have a gun in their hand.

It's like... fuck, dude.

I notice you didn't reply about requiring training/barring paranoid schozoprenics from owning guns.....Are we in agreement on that at least, then?

Leg End:
When someone can actually convince me that these things are not detention centers and are intended to be extermination camps. Just going to assume as well that you're firmly in the "Trump is Hitler" camp.

Well good, if they do turn into extermination camps I hope to see you making a daring rescue. Although considering the terrible conditions are already killing people and they're not doing shit to make the conditions better, I`m already finding the situation unacceptable enough that they need to be abolished yesterday. They may not be intentionally killing children, but they are intentionally not trying to avoid it. That's monstrous enough.

And no, I actually don`t think trump is literally hitler. I think he's just so much of a visionless hateful doofus that he's just a large scale enabler of fascism in the US, not the driving source of it. I think it's more likely that some asshole at these camps would just get the idea of 'These migrants are pissing me off why dont we just shoot 'em' and he'd turn a blind eye or try to post-event deflect blame, rather than him ACTUALLY order it to happen. So....Very close, VERY close, but no cigar.

But a 5-rounds-in-6-seconds handgun is perfectly fine?

Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...But isnt there a considerable difference between rifles and handguns?

Like, rifles allow for more powerful/high caliber ammo (so one shot is almost guaranteed to kill the target, and maybe the guy behind him) unless were talking about magnums, and allow the user to kill at longer ranges (so people fleeing after the initial surprise attack), AND tend to have larger clips so you can shoot 30 shots instead of abotu 10 before you reload, making the initial burst before anyone can stop the guy while he is reloading much longer and deadlier, right?

I mean....IF they're so interchangeable, why arent solider using handguns and not rifles? Clearly, the rifle is better at killing people when you want to kill a lot of people than just a handgun, otherwise why do people gravitate towards assault rifles when they want to kill a lot of people?

And bear in mind, I would MUCH rather a complete gun ban, but I know that's never going to happen, so I sympathize and go 'Fine, keep your guns, just at least try to remove (or AT LEAST LIMIT) the ability for people to mow down an entire crowd because the voices in their head told them to do it.

Take it you've never lived in an area with high gang activity?

Blessedly no. Canadian Suburbs are generally pretty safe, outside of the occaisional person running a drug den in plain sight where things are quiet, and the occaisional bike path predator.

Your entire argument with this basically amounts to the government being so powerful, there is no point in resisting, so why bother? We have Hitler in the Oval Office, supreme court is stacked, and we have death camps within the decade. At what point in that is anything anyone does actually going to stop said Hitler? It's too late so we shouldn't even try, right? Just let it happen.

That's not what I`m saying.

I`m saying that direct violence against the gorvernment that has infinitely greater power is going to go horrendously (At best you can do guerilla strikes and try to just make it so much of a pain to kill you that you bleed them dry over a long period of time)

What would do far MORE damage is to target the system and infrastrucure.

Soo...Get as many people to refuse to work, blow up key important bridges to stagnate the flow of resources, shut down power plants, etc etc. Make it as hard as possible for the government and society to actually function. That'll hurt the government a lot more than even standard gunslinging guerilla strikes will.

Seriously, if every person in the US just refused to go to work until certain demands were met (A total strike), the government and corporations would bend and give in in a week as the economy imploded. If even 15% of people walked off, it would be a huge blow to the economy and make people in power panic.

THIS is how you cripple a behemoth. You stop the participation in, and the function of, the rotten system.

Might guns be helpful in doing so? Maybe. But you dont need the ability to massacre 30 people in a few seconds in order to do it. Maybe not until you have crippled them so thoroughly that you are able to storm the government buildings, at which point they're likely basically finished and have no other play than to nuke their own country out of spite.

EDIT NOTE: I`m away from home and a home PC at the moment, so I cant reply until tomorrow on my next lunch break.

Kwak:
Proven in that availability of guns has a direct correlation to suicide. Obviously going to impact murder. Pulling a trigger in the heat of the moment is easy. Premeditated murder will still happen, but a lot of murder, and suicides, are done in the midst of rage/emotion/depression. Add an extra step in there by changing the availability of an easy to use deadly force, yes it will make a difference.

People do not recognize how significant the impact of ease of use and convenience is in allowing people to do things they might otherwise have not.

Leg End:

The Rogue Wolf:

One of the most bizarre arguments I've ever seen: "Police, with their hundreds of hours of training, are utterly worthless. This is why we need crowds of comparatively untrained and green civilians carrying around guns."

Hundreds of hours of crap training spread across numerous subjects versus the guys that shoot regularly for fun and practice on this specific subject. The idea that police officers are elite humans is a myth, and I know who I'd trust over cops that stay outside when the bullets fly.

Have you actually ever been in a life-or-death situation involving firearms?

Schadrach:

Smithnikov:
He's blaming video games?! B..b..but I thought only LIBERALS did that! But he's our God Emperor! G[REDACTED] told me that Republicans are our allies in the culture war against ess jay dubyas! I'm so confused?!

Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Saelune:
I used to think we would never get back to literal concentration camps, but here we are.

If we're using the literal definition of concentration camps (that is, places to hold civilians who have not been charged or convicted of a crime), then we've never stopped using them, and most countries have them in some form. Us having "concentration camps" for processing immigrants isn't even new to Trump. If you didn't see them before 2017 that means you weren't looking.

Eacaraxe:
Personally, I'm supportive of sane gun control legislation and the dismantling of the security state.

The million dollar question is of course what you consider "sane" gun control?

Are you saying things being bad before means we shouldn't make them better? Or are you saying Trump making things worse isn't a problem?

Trump could stop it, but doesn't. That's a problem in and of itself.

I also think prisons are very poorly run and conditioned, and thats been true before even Bill Clinton. I think we should do something about that too.

Leg End:

Saelune:
Ohio shooting, less than 30 seconds, 10 people killed, 27 injured. How is that better than one person being killed with a knife, maybe 1-3 others injured with cuts?

You underestimate knives. Actual point, a truck, in the span of five minutes, managed to kill 86 people and injure 458.

You don't want to talk statistics, cause you only want it when it suits you, not when it doesn't. Unless you can prove guns save more lives cause of 'good guys with guns' than injure or kill, then you have no ground to stand on.

I literally just cited the metric shitload of defensive gun uses. To think that, moderate estimate, six digits of instances haven't overtaken mass shooting deaths in protection from theft, rape, or murder is... I don't even know what to tell you.

First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

aegix drakan:
I notice you didn't reply about requiring training/barring paranoid schozoprenics from owning guns.....Are we in agreement on that at least, then?

...I'm going to sum it up to no, but because I really, really don't want to delve into the area of mental health, arms, and the government's role in that right now. Or possibly will not want to ever, or at least not on this forum because there are some things I'd rather talk about directly with people in real-time. That's one of the things.

Well good, if they do turn into extermination camps I hope to see you making a daring rescue. Although considering the terrible conditions are already killing people and they're not doing shit to make the conditions better, I`m already finding the situation unacceptable enough that they need to be abolished yesterday. They may not be intentionally killing children, but they are intentionally not trying to avoid it. That's monstrous enough.

That I can thus far gather and with all the evidence available, it does appear that a lot of, if not most of the deaths that are supposedly at the fault of ICE are actually things that I, in all good faith, could not say were actually their fault with the evidence currently available. I believe several of the deaths presented have been due to pre-existing conditions, or were generally things that they, from evidence currently available, took reasonable and expected steps to combat. Note I did not say all, and I'm wanting investigations into those even more than the ones that we do have a clearer picture on, because I want any and all deaths that the facilities are responsible for to be firmly established as such so we can hang them legally, and possibly literally depending on how pissed off I am that day. I'm not for capital punishment, but some days you just have some people you wish were at the end of a rope or in front of a firing line for their crimes.

And no, I actually don`t think trump is literally hitler. I think he's just so much of a visionless hateful doofus that he's just a large scale enabler of fascism in the US, not the driving source of it. I think it's more likely that some asshole at these camps would just get the idea of 'These migrants are pissing me off why dont we just shoot 'em' and he'd turn a blind eye or try to post-event deflect blame, rather than him ACTUALLY order it to happen. So....Very close, VERY close, but no cigar.

I'm fairly certain that most people that aren't actually shells with unholy entities within would absolutely draw the line at doing nothing about executions at the facilities. I myself do have a lot of problems with things going on in a lot of them, and disagree with how this administration is handling it. Some of it I'd personally describe as being treasonous, but I like that word and use it too much.

Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...

Dude, you're willing to actually say you may not be well-versed in the topic, which puts you leagues ahead of the people that plug their ears when they're told that thirty-magazine clips in half a second is the most insane gibberish. You're actually wanting to understand what you're talking about, and I'm happy as shit for that, because a lot of people don't. A lot of people spout actual gibberish in a discussion of arms regulation, and then act like you're an asshole when you want to actually know what they're saying, and you try and convert what they said into something usable for the discussion. You're fucking good in my book.

But isnt there a considerable difference between rifles and handguns?

...In their most base, core operation? Not really. But I'm going to take this from the next bit since I know what you're meaning and I'd rather not shove crap in your face you're not asking, because I have a really bad habit of doing that.

Like, rifles allow for more powerful/high caliber ammo (so one shot is almost guaranteed to kill the target, and maybe the guy behind him) unless were talking about magnums,

Okay, so, rifles by nature tend to allow for larger munitions to be used, yes. The issue with how you described it is that the round I'm believing you're imagining is something akin to taking out Zakhaev in Call of Duty 4, which is still not quite the thing you're picturing(and I'm actually hoping you've played the game or that I'm generally not wrong on what you're picturing because I feel like an asshole already, making a few assumptions) Time for visual aids.

Common or otherwise noteworthy handgun calibers.
image

Comparison of some of those and one particular rifle caliber (which is important next) to a United States Quarter.
image

Finally, comparison between two of those rounds shown to other noteworthy rifle calibers, and a US Dollar.
image

That .50 BMG in the bottom image? That's what was used to shoot his ass, and it's capabilities have become mythical in Hollywood and Video Games, like even the bullet whizzing by can fuck you up. Complete and total lie of course.
That round at the end of the second image and the one next to .22lr on the right in the last one? 556? That's the round the Ohio killer used, and the round most mass shooters that use the AR-15 use. Notice how it's actually pretty small next to the two rounds aside .50 BMG, and even it's commie friend right next to itself relatively. The actual bullets are not that big, and the casing is the more intimidating factor to a lot of these.

Like so.
image

...Actually lost what my point was for a second, but I'm back on track. So when you're talking about high-caliber rounds and such and it's OHK capabilities, that is realistically a thing for any round, because metal flying at high speed into meaty water sacks is not a good thing for the organic. Any of these rounds can kill in one shot, but that's typically not the case. The best one to probably have that shot is the .50 BMG. The key to effectively shooting and actually killing someone is in shot placement, which is what the 5.56 is geared towards. It has stopping power, and it's a lot less likely to actually over-penetrate and leave the target out the other end. Which leads me to the next bit. A round going through somebody is always a risk, and at the same time it is not something that is relied upon because there are so many factors at play, and generally you don't want the round to fly through someone just to hit someone else. Such a thing is very specifically tied to a major rule in firearms safety, which is to always be aware of what is beyond your target, as well as the thing you're actually aiming at.

And just in general on the subject of one hit kills and how that's generally not a thing relied upon which is part of why double or triple-tap is a common thing, this video which is fairly entertaining on top of being educational.

and allow the user to kill at longer ranges (so people fleeing after the initial surprise attack),

Rifles generally have better precision at range, yes. This however does not mean I can't use a handgun for similar because most of these shootings are extremely close-quarters. The effective range of firearms in general is both majorly overstated, and somehow understated at the same time. Don't get me started on buckshot. Good lord, entertainment media and buckshot...

AND tend to have larger clips

Magazines. Not dogging on you like a lot of people tend to, I just want to be informative.
image

so you can shoot 30 shots instead of abotu 10 before you reload, making the initial burst before anyone can stop the guy while he is reloading much longer and deadlier, right?

Standard magazines for rifles are usually larger than the average standard magazine for a handgun, absolutely. But I can buy a 30+ round mag for twenty bucks or, with the advent of 3D printing, soon(or possibly right now, since that's a thing people have done) make one at home and not have to order online, or go to a store. 3D printing is just going to shit all over gun laws. With training, reload times are... pretty fast. You'd need to be using a revolver for your time to reload and the amount of times you reload to actually be a significant factor.

I mean....IF they're so interchangeable, why arent solider using handguns and not rifles?

It's... not that simple. Rifles are nice, and they work. But they're not the be-all end-all of firearms, and there are many situations that you do not want to have a full-sized rifle over something more compact, or possibly built for situations involving truly precise shooting over long ranges. That's also not taking into account that while modern rifles tend to share the same core characteristic, they are not all the same.

Clearly, the rifle is better at killing people when you want to kill a lot of people than just a handgun,

Not that simple, and not the case.

otherwise why do people gravitate towards assault rifles when they want to kill a lot of people?

Because shooters tend to have the same misconceptions that other people do. I'm convinced at this point most of them just use AR-15s because it's common, and for actually thinking they're awesome badasses with black rifles mowing down people. Cho is a good example of the desire to live out a fantasy. Go Google his name and look up photos he sent the media with his handguns. It's very clear what kind of image he was going for, and how he saw himself.

And bear in mind, I would MUCH rather a complete gun ban, but I know that's never going to happen, so I sympathize and go 'Fine, keep your guns, just at least try to remove (or AT LEAST LIMIT) the ability for people to mow down an entire crowd because the voices in their head told them to do it.

Thing is, we really all disagree on the means to truly reduce that number. It's pretty clear my take on it is rather unique on this forum, but we all seem to have different levels and variations of what we would consider to be effective or not effective. I like to believe we, on some level at least, all understand that we've all come to our conclusions out of a true analysis of things we've seen, and probably a lot of life experience. I understand the perspectives of a lot of the people here. I still disagree with what they desire to do with that perspective in mind, but their life experiences and perspective are all theirs and are valuable. Which is why I'm absolutely for gunning bastards down that would end their lives without hesitation.

Blessedly no. Canadian Suburbs are generally pretty safe, outside of the occaisional person running a drug den in plain sight where things are quiet, and the occaisional bike path predator.

Well that's good at least. I've had some shit run-ins in my life in regards to gang members, but it was thankfully kept to a minimum because my city was pretty chill. A fair amount of the time anyway...
My mother however has had far worse in that department, with I believe someone sending a bullet flying through her window when she was a child being a high point, and all the times even in my quiet little city she had to deal with people and manage to keep her kids none the wiser. Bunch of other stuff but that's stuff I wouldn't share without actually asking her first.

What would do far MORE damage is to target the system and infrastrucure.

...

THIS is how you cripple a behemoth. You stop the participation in, and the function of, the rotten system.

And this bit is a subject I actually, with all do respect, do not want to go into here because while this is not actually breaking TOS, it's a subject that I imagine can very easily invoke a Rule 0 and/or just get the thread shut down pretty fast. I'd be more than happy to discuss it elsewhere, but not here. I will say though that you're not wrong in your ideas, and that it does tie into me saying that a Civil War of that kind in the US would in no way be a simple or conventional conflict. Then again, we really haven't had a conventional conflict since World War II, so it really doesn't say much, does it?

I hope my colossal wall of watching myself type is actually informative, and that it brings some kind of understanding to my positions. Not necessarily agree with of course, but maybe you will change your mind, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll understand my craziness, probably won't. But I hope I, if anything, have been informative.

EDIT: Was going to put this in somewhere but forgot to, so I'll just put this as a little addition.
image

With all of the information above, you can now probably realize the cartoonist has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and made the comic with zero basis in reality. In reality? The rifle he's probably referring to as an assault weapon commonly use a round that is considered too small to be effective for even Deer, and in some cases, using rounds people would associate with "Assault Weapons" are considered legally inhumane to hunt with, not because they are big, but because they are small as stated above, and would not reliably result in a clean, humane kill. Bonus video for what you'd actually use to hunt fuckhuge dangerous game, like the Elephant featured.

...I'm not a hunter though, so any hunters that want to beat my ass for any incorrect information, please do.

The Rogue Wolf:

Have you actually ever been in a life-or-death situation involving firearms?

...Essentially no. There was actually a thankfully funny encounter recently, but thank fuck that didn't come to a draw and the cop was cool. I also imagine that's not what you meant. With that, I have a very good idea on what I think you will say, and I do entirely understand that it's a lot easier to say things when you're not in the heat of the moment, and it's a lot different actually effectively using firearms while under pressure. When the time comes, would I run and hide like I chastise the Parkland deputy for doing? Would I buckle and fuck up, likely hitting someone else in the process? I, like anyone else, cannot say I would not do those things with absolute certainty until I'm actually in the hot seat. I'm preparing for that possibility however, and I can only hope that if the day comes, I live up to the standard I've set here.

Saelune:
First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

Multiplication? It's still people attacking others with knives, and in an organized fashion. Not dissimilar to a shooter.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

...I give you credit for consistency. It'd make more sense to me if you were outright calling for bans on both, but you're consistent in that part of your worldview.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

I'll just link this for a more comprehensive covering of the various statistics over the years. It's nowhere close to a straightforward subject, but think of it along the lines of people not always(or rarely) reporting rapes or attempted rapes when they happen, and we don't know about things that happen in the dark. With all of that accounted for, I firmly believe that the amount of defensive uses and potential among the 5-7 digit counts to have prevented death or suffering absolutely dwarfs the number of people killed by the statistically microscopic nutcases, who can also be combated with the same defensive gun use. I don't like breaking humans down to simple numbers, but y'all wanted it and there you go. Pure, by the million-is-a-statistic numbers. I'm actually depressed now and need to go do something uplifting.

erttheking:
I don?t see how that is the case in the modern day unless you want to accuse everyone who?s pro gun control of Being racist.

No more or less than any other policy position that's historically been exploited to perpetuate white supremacy, the implications that has for modern-day implementation, and the psychology behind those who support it. Just because you agree with a policy doesn't negate its history.

Also the idea of being pro gun control and security state is a head scratcher. Most gun control advocated tend to be critical of police brutality and militarization.

Apparently you haven't noticed much about the rightward shift in "liberal" policy positions since Trump took office, particularly as endorsed by the media. This goes well beyond police militarization, by the way, but extends to the surveillance state, expansion of intelligence agencies' powers and mission, military action, and interconnectivity between the media, defense industry, and government. But never mind me, I'm just one of those whackos who noticed the defense industry commercials in breaks during the latest Democratic debates...

Schadrach:
The million dollar question is of course what you consider "sane" gun control?

Not that steaming turd HR8, let's just get that out of the way now. What would I support?

Commercial ban on overpressure and special-purpose rounds. No reason I should be allowed to buy incendiary or flechette shotshells, for instance.

Ban on online ammunition purchases, and mandatory background checks for wholesale/bulk ammunition purchases (say, 500 rounds or more).

Universal ban on aftermarket modifications to firearms' trigger assemblies or actions of any sort, particularly those that impact rate of fire and/or ballistic characteristics such as muzzle velocity or energy, that lack legitimate sporting purpose and cannot be replicated in purchasing firearms of higher or lower caliber, or of different grain or round composition of that caliber. As determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATF.

Universal background checks so long as that is coupled with universal NICS access for the purposes of firearm transfers. None of this "creating a huge payday for gun manufacturers and licensed dealers" bullshit.

Expansion of civil and criminal liability for transfer of possession of firearms that are later employed in violent crime.

Mandatory three-day waiting periods for semi-automatic firearms.

And, what I believe to be the gold standard...

Leg End:
Believe what you want.

Tell you what. You get out there and solve a problem with a gun, or even show me an example of a corrupt cop being killed in the last ten years and American gun owners not collectively swimming up their own assholes, and then you can ride that high horse as much as you like. Until then this has just been a whole lot of posturing.

Leg End:
So, you're going to use that new gun of yours to do something then?

Those are your values, not mine. You don't get to be critical of me not following through with your values. If I had stated that people should get out there and shoot people to make things better, you'd have a point. I didn't. Mainly because I think abuses of authority can?t be solved by shooting the problem till it goes away. More serious reform is required.

Oh and the camps aren't serious enough to act on for you? Not surprised. It's amazing really. The people who talk about how they need their guns to stop acts of cruelty and abuse of power seem to have a shockingly high tolerance for it.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
I don?t see how that is the case in the modern day unless you want to accuse everyone who?s pro gun control of Being racist.

No more or less than any other policy position that's historically been exploited to perpetuate white supremacy, the implications that has for modern-day implementation, and the psychology behind those who support it. Just because you agree with a policy doesn't negate its history.

Also the idea of being pro gun control and security state is a head scratcher. Most gun control advocated tend to be critical of police brutality and militarization.

Apparently you haven't noticed much about the rightward shift in "liberal" policy positions since Trump took office, particularly as endorsed by the media. This goes well beyond police militarization, by the way, but extends to the surveillance state, military action, and interconnectivity between the media, defense industry, and government. But never mind me, I'm just one of those whackos who noticed the defense industry commercials in breaks during the latest Democratic debates...

Schadrach:
The million dollar question is of course what you consider "sane" gun control?

Not that steaming turd HR8, let's just get that out of the way now. What would I support?

Commercial ban on overpressure and special-purpose rounds. No reason I should be allowed to buy incendiary or flechette shotshells, for instance.

Ban on online ammunition purchases, and mandatory background checks for wholesale/bulk ammunition purchases (say, 500 rounds or more).

Universal ban on aftermarket modifications to firearms' trigger assemblies or actions of any sort, particularly those that impact rate of fire and/or ballistic characteristics such as muzzle velocity or energy, that lack legitimate sporting purpose and cannot be replicated in purchasing firearms of higher or lower caliber, or of different grain or round composition of that caliber. As determined on a case-by-case basis by the ATF.

Universal background checks so long as that is coupled with universal NICS access for the purposes of firearm transfers. None of this "creating a huge payday for gun manufacturers and licensed dealers" bullshit.

Expansion of civil and criminal liability for transfer of possession of firearms that are later employed in violent crime.

Mandatory three-day waiting periods for semi-automatic firearms.

And, what I believe to be the gold standard...

Yeah I'm gonna have to see some evidence of modern day gun control being like that or you're simply calling me a racist. Because if it's not racist right now I don't really care if it was in the past. It's like arguing you can't take kids away from their abusive families because taking kids away from their families was and is done to Native Americans in the name of bigotry. A history of racism? Yes. But bringing it up when it's advocated for non racist means is a non sequitur.

So you're basing this not off of suggested policy but the commercials that CNN runs? I'm gonna need something more substantial than that.

Leg End:

trunkage:
Well, I've never been into this 'people don't argue in good faith' on this forum. Until now.

You're literally making stuff up. I know, your just speaking from the NRA manual. Doesn't make it okay.

Is that all this is going to boil down to? I'm some NRA robot spouting from some mythical handbook?

Wait. Are you getting offended that you're being reduced to ridiculous talking points?

Then why did you do it first? Yes I deliberately went out of my way to be ridiculous. Until such time that you start listening and not just making stuff up, you will get similar comments to this:

Gun restrictions are against gun violence. No one thinks this will cure all homicides.

Who is the one not arguing in good faith here? Re-read what I said and you will find I never said anyone thinks it'll magically cure all homicides. Probably my wording, so here's a rewording. People believe murders will drop several orders of magnitude with stricter gun control being enacted in this country. I think people will still be the same murderous assholes they were even if you could manage to enforce the restrictions desired, and then we still have the whole thing about shit cops and the apparent Neo-Nazi at the helm of the most powerful nation on Earth. Doesn't seem smart to me.

Now please cite how many orders of magnitude people are claiming these laws will change. Has any numbers been thrown around?

In Australia, the gun laws were NOT designed to reduce homicide rates. They were designed to make sure there weren't sudden spikes in homicide rate via guns. (A sudden spike being a mass shooting.) So, I dont think we're even talking about the same thing, rather than a nebulous understanding of how to reduce homicides. Which gun laws aren't focused on anyway.

And I'm a person that doesn't think gun laws can work in America. Not just because of all the reasons already stated. It's becuase some Americans want to kill others who disagree with them. They don't want to compromise or take responsibility or even think about how they effect the world. They tend to make up what their opponents are saying, pretend they are the saviours of America despite evidence they are causing unintended consequences and are willing to enforce their lifestyle onto others, and other countries

And these guys are in control.

Schadrach:
Enemies on all sides. Nothing new here. Before Jack Thompson it was Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and Joe Lieberman. The only real variation was the names and the detour from "games cause violence" into "games cause sexism" for a while.

Let's talk about Jack Thompson.

Jack Thompson never actually said that video games cause violent behaviour in adults.

He never said that the sale of violent video games should be banned to adults.

Jack Thompson's primary argument was that exposure to violent video games in childhood could cause violent behaviour in children and young adults.

There is an overwhelming consensus among researchers that exposure to violent media in childhood has detrimental effects, such as increased aggression and reduced empathy. Here is the APA's current official position on the subject of violent games https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

I said on another thread that I was getting tired of the argumentum ad Thompsonium, and this is a perfect illustration of why. Almost everyone who brings up Jack Thompson has absolutely no idea what he argued or why he was wrong, and also has no interest in what is actually right unless it can be twisted it to fit their own narrative, much as Jack Thompson did himself when he misrepresented legitimate scientific findings in order to advance his own career.

Jack Thompson is a fucking creep. Even a cursory summary of his career will reveal a highly manipulative individual who preyed on vulnerable people (either grieving or themselves children) to advance his own agenda and raise his own profile. It will also reveal someone who is (ironically) highly aggressive and prone to personally harassing people to get his own way. But this is not Jack Thompson's crime. This is not why anyone cares about him. You see, Jack Thompson did the most terrible thing imaginable, worse than any of the stuff I just mentioned. Jack Thompson... said mean things about video games.

I dunno. If you want to demonstrate that video games haven't warped your perspective, it may not be a great idea to lump anyone who criticises the medium in any way in as "enemies" and harbour some kind of twisted grudge against them for years or decades on end because they said a thing you like might be a societal ill (or even just have a problem). That's not exactly the sign of a healthy, prosocial person.

I just read the the guys manifesto. He's claiming he did it, because resource depletion, automation, and how immigration will accelerate those things. He blames democrats, republicans, and corporations for not doing anything to stop over consumption of resources. It's basically a poorly written high school paper. At least it wasn't a shitpost like the christchurch shooter who was basically a nihilist and didn't looked like he cared about the ideology he was "defending".

Marik2:
I just read the the guys manifesto. He's claiming he did it, because resource depletion, automation, and how immigration will accelerate those things. He blames democrats, republicans, and corporations for not doing anything to stop over consumption of resources. It's basically a poorly written high school paper. At least it wasn't a shitpost like the christchurch shooter who was basically a nihilist and didn't looked like he cared about the ideology he was "defending".

Here's a very different take. And this may explain the poorly thought out manifesto

erttheking:
Yeah I?m gonna have to see some evidence of modern day gun control being like that or you?re simply calling me a racist.

Oh, but I'm not calling you personally a racist, I'm saying you just happen to live in a society in which white supremacy impacts everyone's lives in ways perceptible and imperceptible, large and small, and that a system of privilege and oppression exists within it that is not always obvious to those in positions of privilege. And, that you should consider that and weigh historic legacy against contemporary interests, and endorse a mediated position that leads society towards greater equity. Just because you don't see that connectivity, does not mean that connectivity does not exist.

Bullshit aside. Convicted felons can't legally possess or purchase firearms unless they get the felony expunged from their record. Regardless of offense. Which groups get nailed disproportionately hard by non-violent felony drug offenses, and have the least success with expunction? [HINT: It's the same group that gets disproportionately disenfranchised for the same reason, and gets blown away by militarized cops on the regular. How neat is that?]

Black disarmament still happens, and to a shocking degree -- just under a layer of legitimacy and justification as a compelling state interest. Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is a compelling state interest, but the intersection of that with Jim Crow 2.0 (AKA the drug war) yields an outcome detrimental to minority groups' civil rights. The policy itself isn't racist, but it exists within a racist policy framework. You know, kind of like voter ID -- the law itself isn't racist, but on the other hand you can guarantee once voter ID laws get passed, BMV's in majority or plurality black areas get shut down real fuckin' fast.

trunkage:

Marik2:
I just read the the guys manifesto. He's claiming he did it, because resource depletion, automation, and how immigration will accelerate those things. He blames democrats, republicans, and corporations for not doing anything to stop over consumption of resources. It's basically a poorly written high school paper. At least it wasn't a shitpost like the christchurch shooter who was basically a nihilist and didn't looked like he cared about the ideology he was "defending".

Here's a very different take. And this may explain the poorly thought out manifesto

That's very interesting, the differences between political violence perpetrators and serial killers. Someone needs to talk about it on mainstream news.

Eacaraxe:

erttheking:
Yeah I?m gonna have to see some evidence of modern day gun control being like that or you?re simply calling me a racist.

Oh, but I'm not calling you personally a racist, I'm saying you just happen to live in a society in which white supremacy impacts everyone's lives in ways perceptible and imperceptible, large and small, and that a system of privilege and oppression exists within it that is not always obvious to those in positions of privilege. And, that you should consider that and weigh historic legacy against contemporary interests, and endorse a mediated position that leads society towards greater equity. Just because you don't see that connectivity, does not mean that connectivity does not exist.

Bullshit aside. Convicted felons can't legally possess or purchase firearms unless they get the felony expunged from their record. Regardless of offense. Which groups get nailed disproportionately hard by non-violent felony drug offenses, and have the least success with expunction? [HINT: It's the same group that gets disproportionately disenfranchised for the same reason, and gets blown away by militarized cops on the regular. How neat is that?]

Black disarmament still happens, and to a shocking degree -- just under a layer of legitimacy and justification as a compelling state interest. Prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is a compelling state interest, but the intersection of that with Jim Crow 2.0 (AKA the drug war) yields an outcome detrimental to minority groups' civil rights. The policy itself isn't racist, but it exists within a racist policy framework. You know, kind of like voter ID -- the law itself isn't racist, but on the other hand you can guarantee once voter ID laws get passed, BMV's in majority or plurality black areas get shut down real fuckin' fast.

I'm well aware of what happens when Black people are criminalized. Except the people who are generally pro-gun control tend to also be against the over-policing of black people. Dude, you are bringing things up that I myself regularly bring up. What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control? Just...no. I'm just baffled that you're saying the mainly left-wing idea of gun control is racist because of the right-wing idea of being tough on crime.

Like I said before. It's like arguing you can't take kids away from their abusive families because taking kids away from their families was and is done to Native Americans in the name of bigotry. A history of racism? Yes. But bringing it up when it's advocated for non racist means is a non sequitur. And I'm guessing you're not in favor of making it so that the government can never, ever take kids away from their families.

To add to what Leg End has said:

aegix drakan:
Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...

That's never stopped anyone from talking about guns and gun control. On either side of the debate, unfortunately. I'm not military or police or even American, my knowledge of guns comes from private research I've done myself. There is a wealth of information out there, it's just that many, many people are either clueless muppets or lying.

Owning an AR-15 is not going to enable you to overthrow the government. Banning AR-15s that have features like bayonet lugs or pistol grips is not going to stop people from being shot by AR-15s.

I strongly believe that the US would be better if it had serious gun control, I strongly believe that it won't get it any time soon, and I can definitely accept an argument that owning a gun might make you safer from the Nazis that are roaming US streets. The downside being that there's lots of other dangers involved in owning a gun or going to a public shooting range.

aegix drakan:
Forgive my huge lack of knowledge on the topic...But isnt there a considerable difference between rifles and handguns?

Like, rifles allow for more powerful/high caliber ammo (so one shot is almost guaranteed to kill the target, and maybe the guy behind him) unless were talking about magnums, and allow the user to kill at longer ranges (so people fleeing after the initial surprise attack), AND tend to have larger clips so you can shoot 30 shots instead of abotu 10 before you reload, making the initial burst before anyone can stop the guy while he is reloading much longer and deadlier, right?

Yes and no. Being guaranteed to kill the target is a lie told to you by Hollywood (or, dare I say it, videogames). Firearms are both more and less dangerous than people tend to believe. In the movies, the bad guy gets shot by the hero and dies instantly, the hero gets shot in the shoulder and makes a full recovery. In reality, the bad guy might take a while to die (while pointing their gun at the hero, there's a problem there), and the hero, if they survive, likely suffers severe and permanent damage.

Rifle rounds tend to be higher velocity, so they are more likely to inflict more damage on the target, that is absolutely true. You can get extra big magazines for pistols, but then again you can get big drum mags for rifles.

aegix drakan:
I mean....IF they're so interchangeable, why arent solider using handguns and not rifles? Clearly, the rifle is better at killing people when you want to kill a lot of people than just a handgun, otherwise why do people gravitate towards assault rifles when they want to kill a lot of people?

US soldiers (and police) tend to have pistols and rifles. Right tool for the job and all, plus it's faster to draw a pistol than find out why your rifle has stopped working and fix it. Not all militaries issue pistols that way, though.

You also mean "assault weapon" (a legal term created by gun control advocates who don't know or don't care what they are talking about), rather than "assault rifle" there. Though, often the difference is just the lack of automatic or burst fire.

While mass shootings tend to be done with assault weapons, very often AR-15s, murder in general are more likely to be done with handguns as they are easier to conceal. And some companies made cheap, basically disposable guns (sometimes advertised as not leaving fingerprints on well), basically for the murder business.

A lot of murders and gun crime is also committed with whatever gun someones parents or grandparents had lying around.

Leg End:
I'm convinced at this point most of them just use AR-15s because it's common, and for actually thinking they're awesome badasses with black rifles mowing down people.

Well, they are very common, and do have the cred of being part of the same platform as the standard issue US military rifle and carbine. And you can get all sorts of after market add ons. Though, a lot of that is probably due to being popular due to being popular.

Leg End:

Saelune:
First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

Multiplication? It's still people attacking others with knives, and in an organized fashion. Not dissimilar to a shooter.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

...I give you credit for consistency. It'd make more sense to me if you were outright calling for bans on both, but you're consistent in that part of your worldview.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

I'll just link this for a more comprehensive covering of the various statistics over the years. It's nowhere close to a straightforward subject, but think of it along the lines of people not always(or rarely) reporting rapes or attempted rapes when they happen, and we don't know about things that happen in the dark. With all of that accounted for, I firmly believe that the amount of defensive uses and potential among the 5-7 digit counts to have prevented death or suffering absolutely dwarfs the number of people killed by the statistically microscopic nutcases, who can also be combated with the same defensive gun use. I don't like breaking humans down to simple numbers, but y'all wanted it and there you go. Pure, by the million-is-a-statistic numbers. I'm actually depressed now and need to go do something uplifting.

1 person with a gun scares me more than 1 guy with a knife. 100 guys with guns scare me more than 100 guys with knives.

I dont think knives should be regulated the way guns are, but I would be suspicious of people overly attached to their knives outside a kitchen or dinner table or out camping.

Being consistent in one's views should not be considered an exceptional thing, it should be the norm. Turn away from Trump and McConnel and Graham and Conway and the rest of them. And no, its not ok for left wingers either.

Considering how often right-wingers doubt rape accusations, I find it inconsistent to use rape prevention as an excuse, I mean, when refering to non-hypocritical people anyways.

Or would Kavanaugh be less credible with a gunhole instead of a dickhole?

I genuinly think shooting each other to death* is not the best form of personal defense considering how easily people can get hostile and riled up. How many cases ending in broken noses would instead end in homicides? I mean, I wont cry over a rapist full of gunshots, but I dont think that will be most cases. I dont even trust people with alcohol and cars.

*I am always told shoot to kill, that the idea of shoot to subdue is unrealistic

Saelune:

Leg End:

Saelune:
Ohio shooting, less than 30 seconds, 10 people killed, 27 injured. How is that better than one person being killed with a knife, maybe 1-3 others injured with cuts?

You underestimate knives. Actual point, a truck, in the span of five minutes, managed to kill 86 people and injure 458.

You don't want to talk statistics, cause you only want it when it suits you, not when it doesn't. Unless you can prove guns save more lives cause of 'good guys with guns' than injure or kill, then you have no ground to stand on.

I literally just cited the metric shitload of defensive gun uses. To think that, moderate estimate, six digits of instances haven't overtaken mass shooting deaths in protection from theft, rape, or murder is... I don't even know what to tell you.

First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

Truck usage is regulated. You need to pass a test and register your truck.

CheetoDust:

Saelune:

Leg End:

You underestimate knives. Actual point, a truck, in the span of five minutes, managed to kill 86 people and injure 458.I literally just cited the metric shitload of defensive gun uses. To think that, moderate estimate, six digits of instances haven't overtaken mass shooting deaths in protection from theft, rape, or murder is... I don't even know what to tell you.

First words of that article: 'A group of knife-wielding men', ya know, as opposed to a single 24 year old.

I also think truck usage should be regulated. I think lots of people who should not have guns should also not be allowed at the wheel of a truck or car.

If you cited anything else, it wasn't to me and a quick skim-through I did not see it.

Truck usage is regulated. You need to pass a test and register your truck.

Lots of things are regulated. Guns should be too. Where are all the people calling for the abolition of driver's licenses? People saying even kids should be driving cars? People act like we don't accept this shit all the time already. (Not saying you're one of them, if that's not clear)

Leg End:

Kwak:

Proven in that availability of guns has a direct correlation to suicide. Obviously going to impact murder. Pulling a trigger in the heat of the moment is easy. Premeditated murder will still happen, but a lot of murder, and suicides, are done in the midst of rage/emotion/depression. Add an extra step in there by changing the availability of an easy to use deadly force, yes it will make a difference.

Alright, taking that at face value. How would you accomplish that, short of actually banning civilian access to firearms and borderline eliminating the illegal market, through whatever means? How do you directly address the issue of influx suicidal emotions? How do you address the growing number of people taking the exit route of suicide by cop? How do you address any other method? I'm not seeing the issue of people that are suicidal actually being addressed. I feel like guns are being seen as the boogeyman people are blaming for people wanting to end their own life, and thinking that it just stops if they don't have a gun in their hand.

It's like... fuck, dude.

I, ah, was not aware I was making a controversial proposal.
I'm not attempting to 'solve' it. I don't suggest less easy access to guns will stop suicide or murder, it will still happen. It will just happen less and it will be demonstrable that it happens less. Those in the depths of despair will not reach for a quick literal trigger 'solution' if it's not so quick and easy. Those who deliberately and meticulously plan out their acts will still follow through, but the many who are just in the grip of momentary spasms of despair will live another day to see a sunrise or puppy or a smile that may change how they feel. I would be dead so many times if there were guns in easy reach.

Leg End:
Would I buckle and fuck up, likely hitting someone else in the process? I, like anyone else, cannot say I would not do those things with absolute certainty until I'm actually in the hot seat. I'm preparing for that possibility however, and I can only hope that if the day comes, I live up to the standard I've set here.

You probably don't hope it quite as much as the person you accidentally hit when you buckle and fuck up.

Marik2:

trunkage:

Marik2:
I just read the the guys manifesto. He's claiming he did it, because resource depletion, automation, and how immigration will accelerate those things. He blames democrats, republicans, and corporations for not doing anything to stop over consumption of resources. It's basically a poorly written high school paper. At least it wasn't a shitpost like the christchurch shooter who was basically a nihilist and didn't looked like he cared about the ideology he was "defending".

Here's a very different take. And this may explain the poorly thought out manifesto

That's very interesting, the differences between political violence perpetrators and serial killers. Someone needs to talk about it on mainstream news.

This guy is a journalist, so he's more likely to make an impact in that space

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here