Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[nuttynutskin]

I dont expect anything to actually be done about it. Let me know when something is done and Ill eat my hat.

So you don't think there could be some solutions somewhere in the middle? 8(

That's the whole problem. People see the issue in such black and white terms. Either everyone's apparently walking around with fully automatic weapons or there's no guns at all.

 

[alasdairm]

Not really, yeah shootings would drop, but if someone is set on committing such an act they'll find a way. Guns aren't the problem.

they're part of the problem.

given all the alternatives to guns are readily available - knives, etc. - why do the perpetrators of these acts always choose to use a gun?

alasdair

 

[spacejunk]

^ i'd much prefer my chances of self defence against anything but a gun.
Guns and knives are totally different in terms of their use in violence. A gun will kill someone almost by proxy.
Stabbing is more of a commitment, and involves "getting your hands dirty"

So you don't think there could be some solutions somewhere in the middle? 8(

That's the whole problem. People see the issue in such black and white terms. Either everyone's apparently walking around with fully automatic weapons or there's no guns at all

I think that's why it is important/interesting to discuss from all the different angles we come at it from.

I don't really get why people bother commenting to point out that it's not worth discussing. I mean, if that were true, it wouldn't be such a healthy discussion.
And as i said in one of my posts, there's a lot more to the discussion than gun laws.
To me it's a bit defeatist to reduce the discussion down to a black-and-white impasse.

 

[Tubbs]

they're part of the problem.

given all the alternatives to guns are readily available - knives, etc. - why do the perpetrators of these acts always choose to use a gun?

alasdair

It's impersonal, it's easy, it's fast. I'll agree that they are part of the problem, but they aren't the only problem, this last shooting had so many warning signs it's ridiculous, and they were ignored, I think that's the bigger problem.

 

[swilow]

^I suppose the bigger problem is the humans controlling the guns, but it seems like its overshooting the problem to focus on that and overlooking the blunter approach (I'm full of weapon puns tonight) of trying to remove as many of the tools these dreadful humans are misusing. I actually think it would be easier and more effective to do that than to screen out the next mass murder. I know it restricts the freedom of people to have these things hidden away and never used but I totally and absolutely have no issue in impinging directly on this freedom. Because I think it would probably be effective, and if it wasn't, the consequences really wouldn't be too dire.

Cue the argument that removing guns doesn't stop gun violence an argument that I can't really understand but I would actually say the data is not there either way; comparing say, the American vs. Australian stance is faulty because the two nations have very different cultural relationships to weapons. It would be an interesting experiment in one US city, to remove guns as much as possible and see what happened. I wonder if the government would suddenly start bombing it from the harbour.

 

[nuttynutskin]

this last shooting had so many warning signs it's ridiculous, and they were ignored, I think that's the bigger problem.

This X 1000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[Tubbs]

^I suppose the bigger problem is the humans controlling the guns, but it seems like its overshooting the problem to focus on that and overlooking the blunter approach (I'm full of weapon puns tonight) of trying to remove as many of the tools these dreadful humans are misusing. I actually think it would be easier and more effective to do that than to screen out the next mass murder. I know it restricts the freedom of people to have these things hidden away and never used but I totally and absolutely have no issue in impinging directly on this freedom. Because I think it would probably be effective, and if it wasn't, the consequences really wouldn't be too dire.

Cue the argument that removing guns doesn't stop gun violence an argument that I can't really understand but I would actually say the data is not there either way; comparing say, the American vs. Australian stance is faulty because the two nations have very different cultural relationships to weapons. It would be an interesting experiment in one US city, to remove guns as much as possible and see what happened. I wonder if the government would suddenly start bombing it from the harbour.

Chicago has a ban on the sale of new handguns, yet they had over 600 murders and many many more shootings last year, most of the murders were shootings.

 

[nuttynutskin]

^I suppose the bigger problem is the humans controlling the guns, but it seems like its overshooting the problem to focus on that and overlooking the blunter approach (I'm full of weapon puns tonight) of trying to remove as many of the tools these dreadful humans are misusing.

At times it's pretty evident when someone that doesn't live here tries to come up with some solution. Any idea of removing or taking away people's guns is laughable and not going to happen. Something like 42 percent of U.S. households have at least one gun in possession, so good luck with any of that. It wouldn't even be feasible, but if it was the result would cause way more damage than any school shooting ever could.

I actually think it would be easier and more effective to do that than to screen out the next mass murder. I know it restricts the freedom of people to have these things hidden away and never used but I totally and absolutely have no issue in impinging directly on this freedom. Because I think it would probably be effective, and if it wasn't, the consequences really wouldn't be too dire.

Are you for real? I gotta say I like you but you've honestly lost some of my respect if you have no issue impinging on people's freedom. Yeah it'd be effective. Effective at starting a fucking war. Maybe in some countries people don't have a problem subserviently handing over their guns but that's not quite the sentiment of gun owners in the U.S.

Cue the argument that removing guns doesn't stop gun violence an argument that I can't really understand

Do you understand how many guns are already out there in the U.S.?

It would be an interesting experiment in one US city, to remove guns as much as possible and see what happened.

Yeah I'm sure the results would be just great. I mean look at how much less crime there is in cities with stricter gun control. 8(

 

[nuttynutskin]

Chicago has a ban on the sale of new handguns, yet they had over 600 murders and many many more shootings last year, most of the murders were shootings.

Wow, they've outright banned the sale of handguns? That's insane. I knew Chicago had strict gun laws but I actually wasn't aware of that.

 

[JessFR]

Indeed. Non Americans, at least any that haven't lived in the US long enough to realize. Are usually unable to comprehend the nature of the gun situation in the US.

Suggesting they actually take away all guns is not constructive. You might as well be suggesting that we should just all universally agree to stop shooting each other. It's just as implausible a "solution".

Other countries have done it but those countries never had gun cultures that were like Americas when they did it. They were able to do it, we can't. As difficult as almost all the options are, the "let's just ban them all and take them all away by force" is so outside the realm of possibility it's actually just a distraction from much better more plausible options to even waste time thinking about it.

It's not happening. If you didn't grow up in the US and have never lived there for an extended period of time, perhaps you just can't understand it. But it is the way it is.

Total prohibition and confiscation isn't an option, which is why not even the most antigun groups of us politics openly suggest it.

Even the antigun side of us politics won't openly admit to wanting that, and many of them honestly don't want it.

Consider the idea, if you live in say the UK or Australia. That one morning you woke up to find 30% of the population wanted US style gun freedoms. OK so you know how absurdly crazy unlikely that sounds?

That's about how unlikely it is that Americans would sufficiently want full scale gun prohibition for it to ever plausibly happen.

It's not on the table, suggesting it is a waste of time that could be spent much better.

I in fact have lived in both US and Australia for extended amounts of time, and sometimes I hear Australians talk about Americans and American gun culture. And it's pretty obvious they truly don't comprehend it at all. It's alien to them. They may watch American movies and TV shows nonstop, but apparently that's just not enough to really get you to comprehend the culture.

Obviously the culture varies internally, but even the most antigun of American culture still looks crazy to Australians in how pro gun it is by comparison.

In America, if you say you're OK with banning future sales of "assault weapons" but not handguns, you're anti gun. All Australians hear is "wait? You're pro handguns? And you only want to ban future sales? What about all the ones out there already? gun crazy Americans.."

Our antigun is more pro gun than what their pro gun has ever been. The situations aren't the same and what other countries did, even if you assume they worked, aren't options for the US. They won't be for the foreseeable future.

 

[nuttynutskin]

Off topic: /\ How are you doing? You should empty your inbox once in a while. lol

Back to guns... I have a proposition. That every time one of these tragedies happens, lets just all focus solely on guns and not on all of the other factors that led up to the shooting. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

 

[zephyr]

So you don't think there could be some solutions somewhere in the middle? 8(

That's the whole problem. People see the issue in such black and white terms. Either everyone's apparently walking around with fully automatic weapons or there's no guns at all.

Yes there is a solution in the middle. Start with the type of weapons and additional modifications that srsly need to go as theres a whole heap of weapons that are cleatly not designed for home protection. Ban them.

Ensure any weaponry are stored in gun safes so kids can not access thrm.

Have background checks and a long wait period to get them

Have a gun license recheck of every gun registered and an amnesty of return of guns not registered .

Jail terms for those found with unlicensed guns

I am not living there but it breaks my heart kids are dead and theres a total lack of facing the gun problem that is obviously there.

 

[nuttynutskin]

But did you not say "Banning guns and taking them away would actually stop the shootings and to hell with "freedom to have guns" a few posts back? I'm confused as to what your stance is.

I don't agree with your gun control ideas either tho, so meh.

 

[zephyr]

My stance is irrelevant as I dont live there and live in a country that banned a plethora of high powered weapons after ONE massacre and have had none since.

There.

Open your eyes and see how fruitless arguing for guns and why massacres happen.

That is really insane.

Its no big deal if you dont get my stance . Im just a fruitloop nutter

 

[mal3volent]

I don't see guns or needle exchanges as being remotely similar.

Needle exchanges save lives, no matter how unpalatable they are to some people. The whole nimby ('not in my back yard') argument is somewhat negated by the fact that drug related social problems tend to improve when harm reduction programs are introduced in an area. People who complain that needle exchanges will bring drug addicts into their neighbourhood may not realise - or acknowledge - that there are already lots of addicts in the area already (hence the needle exchange).

Besides being controversial, though, i don't see any other comparison.

Exchanges are put there for community health, and to prevent outbreaks of blood-borne disease and other drug related harm. They are a response to a difficult problem that is made even harder with drug prohibition.
Drugs law reform benefits public health.

As much as guns may be a symbol of "liberty" and "rights" to some americans, they remain killing machines. No matter what cultural or political significance you place on them, the fact remains that they are tools for killing.
Which is why i think any analogy with needle exchanges is problematic (at best).
Guns don't further public health, and i can't think of any community-minded reason for their presence in civilian homes.

I think there is a good reason why american gun culture is an anomaly - it doesn't make sense out of an american cultural context.

Guns are controversial for a lot of reasons, and they cause a lot of misery and death - from mass murder to suicide, and the impact guns have on police, who have been criticised a lot recently for shooting unarmed people because they assume that they've got a gun.

It seems that a lot of people want change because they're not happy to live in a country where it is so easy to obtain weapons to kill dozens of people.
But there are other people who seem to judge the value of a society on the "rights" they have as citizens.

I'm certainly not judging that idea - but i don't share it. For me, quality of life in a society can be measured in so many more nuanced ways.
I'd personally rather live in a society with a social welfare safety net and universal healthcare than individualist tokens like guns.
It makes a huge difference to society, and a huge difference to citizens' quality of life, when there is a system in place to help people when they fall on tough times.
Australia was a very young nation when the Great Depression hit, followed by the second world war (and rations etc) so i think there is something of an official acceptance (or, at least there was) that we can all fall on tough times.
To me the Welfare State is a really great thing, and an example of human social development.
I think individualism is a bit of a historical relic. I mean, it suits some people, but the overall social impact can be pretty dire, as the wealth disparity of the USA attests to.
The thing about our current economic system is that poor people are an inevitable element of modern society - so to me the ideology of individualism is quite a brutal one, because if you're not blessed with good fortune, you're basically condemned to a life of hardship.
Is it any wonder that a nation built on such a dog-eat-dog belief system would also have a constitutionally enshrined right to gun ownership?

I think there are a lot of advantages to living in a country where access to firearms is strictly limited.
I don't personally see any reason for people in an otherwise peaceful and highly urbanised country to need weapons of war, and i notice that very few people seem to be using the old "guns protect us from government tyranny" line - which perhaps is for the best (you wouldn't want to actually have to see that idea through, because the state has you throughly outgunned).
Funny how that argument was all the rage when Obama was president -funny that. I remember people spouting it regulary on bluelight. But it is also conspicuous in its absence.
To me gun culture seems like it was established in 'frontier times' - in other words, it is something that developed from a time of colonial domination and attempts to survive in a harsh, unvforgiving landscape. In other words, a time relgated to history.

But for people who enjoy having a machine that can kill someone from across the room with the pull of a trigger, that's their deal.
I think the way people fetishise guns is quite ridiculous, but it's not my problem so i don't really have a issue with; it doesn't really affect me.

I mean, guns don't feed the hungry, they don't pay your medical bills or keep you off the streets.
They do facilitate robberies, which is where they may appeal to people to people who are desperate - but i get the feeling that guns have become a necessary part of the american psyche because of the 'rugged individualist' myth of national identity.

It's expressed quite well in the inherent selfishness of right wing libertarianism - each looks after himself and his own, and doesn't give a passing thought to anyone else in society or the collective responsibility they all share.

The outcome of that kind of attitude is for there to be people that control a lot of resources, and others who have very little - or none. So of course those who have a lot of wealth will feel the need to arm themselves against those who have nothing.
Where i grew up, the national mythology is a little different - here we have the myth of egalitarianism.
It doesn't mean shit in the neo-liberal age of predatory capitalism, but "a fair go" was once considered to be part of the national ethos - the social contract.
and the idea, rather than "every man for himself", but that we all have an equal share - or at least a fair chance at working towards it. It was built in a time when Australia seemed like a land of unlimited potential for wealth and growth.

Guns don't play much of a role in our national myth, so the 1996 reforms to gun laws didn't have the same impact such a move would in the states.
A lot of australians supported the move to restrict gun ownership, because we're happy to sacrifice the "right" to have weapons if it means that there are less guns in the community.
When guns aren't particularly prevalent in society, it negates the whole idea that you need them for self defence, because shooting someone in self defence doesn't constitute reasonable force.
I like the scarcity of firearms here, because i don't see weapons as necessary to existence, safety or security. All things considered, i think it's a positive thing for society. I don't really see any down side, as i wouldn't own a gun - or have anything to do with guns - so to me, it's all good. Gun owners probably feel differently - but i wouldn't know, i don't know anyone who is into guns.

I can't really comment on america, but i am constantly reminded of the downsides of people exercising their "right to bear arms"; high levels of gun violence, shooting rampages, high suicide rates for gun owners and a lot of lethal force used by police - presumably because they think people are about to shoot them.

If the horror of school shootings and other indiscriminate murders in public places are a price people are willing to pay for the privilege of owning a weapon is something people can accept and be happy with, i guess that is their call.
I definitely sympathise with the millions of people in america who favour gun control, but i think they are fighting against a whole lot of historic, social and cultural forces that are stacked in favour of the status quo.

To me, it's madness - but it's the sort of mentality the USA runs on - and well, to each their own.
Violence and murder know no national boundaries, but i think it's fairly obvious that any idiot can commit mass murder in places where they can access the tools to do so legally and easily.
Not having any interest in killing, i'm happy to live somewhere that doesn't make it easy to get weapons, because i never encounter people packing heat. To me, that's good.

Now i understand that nobody wants to hear an australian talking up the merits of restricting gun ownership - but I'm happy to be in a country that hasn't had a massacre for almost 22 years. As far as i'm concerned, that speaks for itself - not just about gun laws, but about society as a whole. I think there are a lot of big-picture issues that are ommitted from this discussion, but are nevertheless quite relevant.

fucking bravo...don't let anyone tell you that you don't understand the American psyche because you clearly do. Obama pissed off half the country when he said we cling to our guns and our religion but that's because it's true. And that was in the good ole days, in 2008 or so.

the nra had been laying relatively low, laying the groundwork for what was to come, for decades before Obama. They were just hunters and small dicked blowhards. But they were gradually drilling the mentality you outlined into our minds...guns=freedom. Extreme individualism, neo-libertarianism, tacit racism...these things combined with money...lots and lots of money in the pockets of every Republican and rural Democrat.

A black man in the White House was their dream scenario. That night in November 2008 that gave so many of us hope also made every paranoid delusion that had been festering in these peoples heads real. The NRA was ready, and they pounced. Liberals were recklessly naive and within two years Obamas revolution, the one where we were going to become part of the civilized world, was hijacked. Now we have Trump, who is the perfect representation of our rotten, cancerous society.

 

[andyturbo]

Indeed. Non Americans, at least any that haven't lived in the US long enough to realize. Are usually unable to comprehend the nature of the gun situation in the US.

Suggesting they actually take away all guns is not constructive. You might as well be suggesting that we should just all universally agree to stop shooting each other. It's just as implausible a "solution".

Other countries have done it but those countries never had gun cultures that were like Americas when they did it. They were able to do it, we can't. As difficult as almost all the options are, the "let's just ban them all and take them all away by force" is so outside the realm of possibility it's actually just a distraction from much better more plausible options to even waste time thinking about it.

It's not happening. If you didn't grow up in the US and have never lived there for an extended period of time, perhaps you just can't understand it. But it is the way it is.

Total prohibition and confiscation isn't an option, which is why not even the most antigun groups of us politics openly suggest it.

Even the antigun side of us politics won't openly admit to wanting that, and many of them honestly don't want it.

Consider the idea, if you live in say the UK or Australia. That one morning you woke up to find 30% of the population wanted US style gun freedoms. OK so you know how absurdly crazy unlikely that sounds?

That's about how unlikely it is that Americans would sufficiently want full scale gun prohibition for it to ever plausibly happen.

It's not on the table, suggesting it is a waste of time that could be spent much better.

I in fact have lived in both US and Australia for extended amounts of time, and sometimes I hear Australians talk about Americans and American gun culture. And it's pretty obvious they truly don't comprehend it at all. It's alien to them. They may watch American movies and TV shows nonstop, but apparently that's just not enough to really get you to comprehend the culture.

Obviously the culture varies internally, but even the most antigun of American culture still looks crazy to Australians in how pro gun it is by comparison.

In America, if you say you're OK with banning future sales of "assault weapons" but not handguns, you're anti gun. All Australians hear is "wait? You're pro handguns? And you only want to ban future sales? What about all the ones out there already? gun crazy Americans.."

Our antigun is more pro gun than what their pro gun has ever been. The situations aren't the same and what other countries did, even if you assume they worked, aren't options for the US. They won't be for the foreseeable future.

This is not correct at all. You definantly didnt live in any major citys. My first and only post on this topic:

The ammount of times that steriotypical and ignorent line is used is stunning. Firstly i completely think this was a false flag so just clearing that up.

The main thing is EVERYONE has a 'God given right' too protect there loved ones! And im sure almost everyone worldwide agrees hence why we all would/do so.

You have to wonder why everyone does this successfully, but theres only one country that has such a bad problem with shootings so much so that its brainwashed them into thinking the need for things like Police based at schools is normal!?

I love guns and shooting. Own 3 myself. Sleep safely every night, and hypotheticly if someone was to break in i know exactly what id do to fuck them up untill the cops arrived.

Also have the pleasure of living in freedom where such violence like people geting shot may happen three or four times a year.

And thats not even a worry as its 99% of the time organised crime or 1% MC's killing eachother over a drug deal ect.

People dont break into homes here with guns. It just never ever happens. Why? Because society isnt flooded with them where every man and his dog has them. People that have guns here are either:
people like myself, that simply like shooting and hunting.
.Law Enforcement (that rarely ever need to fire a shot in their whole carrier and ive never even seen one need to pull it out of its holster. The use of tazers and pepperspray 99.9% of the time is the max force needed to neautalize and arrest a threat (again, because people dont just have guns..those that do have them for a reason as im mentioning here)
3. Serious Organised Crime, Bikers, Mafia, Big Asian/lebonese crime syndicates/familys.

Those in group 3 could not give two shits about going into peoples homes to steal a few hundred dollers worth of junk. Nor waste the time. The people that might are low lifes firstly wouldnt know where/who to get one from and 2. Be able too afford it.

Black market guns are hard to source and bloody expensive. A 9mm (glock for ex) most organised crime groups that sell them go for between $5000-$7000 dollers. And the arms trade is with in those groups anyway. People that are trading $100,000-20M+ of Meth,Heroin,Cocaine ect

Again, Not the shitkicker dealer up the road selling grams or 8balls.

Summing up again so it may have a chance of sinking in to a gun obsessed mind:

1. I live safetly and FREELY going anyway without having to even think that "i wonder if that guy walking passed me at 9pm has a gun.

I have the FREEDOM to enjoy doing something i love when i have the time. Blasting my shotgun at shit or hiting a target/wild pest lined up in the scope from a distance.

And besides living in the worlds most livable city the last 7 years in a row (ok i admit that was just said to brag lol its irrelevent to topic)

And live in Freedom in an awesome country (which there are many of) that has NO civillians shooting eachother OR mass shootings in public. And i thank god for having these conditions to live free and safe and happy.

Too those guntards. Its time you started to value the life of other humans. YOU HAVE A OUT OF CONTROL COUNTRY WIDE SHOOTING PROBLEM. Im not refering to the stupid false flags i am very aware and awake too that shit. Im talking about the shootings happening everyday. My first time i went to America about 8 years ago THE FIRST MORNING in LA i woke up and walked out of the hotel to get breakfast and a chopper was flying, up the road blocked off with cops and police tape. I asked somesome whats going on and they so casually said " some bitch got poped or something " . I had never seen a murder (post or during) before in my life. Im not religious, but i would gurentee if there was a God watching over the world, i know who would be going to heaven and who would be to hell.

Also final thing. Banning guns is stupid, so dont even beging with saying something typical that the world has to always listen to from tunnled visioned yanks. I dont want anyone to take your guns as i wouldnt mine. There NEEDS to for the respect of human life Be SOME REGULATIONS put in place so not just anyone anytime can go and buy semi autos like a pack of smokes. Thats fine if you want one, but being accountible for your choice is a decent thing in everyones sane mind but the mindfucked guntarts. Nothing will change if your not going to shoot people with it so it seriously wont make any difference.

It will however link you to your firearm if you decide too murder someone or shootup a house. And so it should.

Your founding fathers that is always ignorently used would be fucking ashamed if they were alive today and saw the choas..considering what they fought for.

And before you go typing what i know man would do (its so robot like and predictable)
In 1776 have a think what weapons where around when writting that amendment. Have a good think about that and compare it too 2018.

This hasnt been an opinion on a issue i know nothing about. It has been an insight into my life and that of how nearly all major countrys live- Free. This is living proof that its time for you too swallow that egotistical mindset and accept america MUST start using its brains, protecting lives and taking responsibility. If theres any hope of "America being great" - then whynot start it.

Peace

 

[andyturbo]

Check your PM's spacejunk man!

 

[andyturbo]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And the good news is not one part of that needs to be changed.

What does is the process of lowering the out of control shootings (which wont be easy,nor quick, but obviously needs to start) With smart, effective, non tyranical ways of gradually geting those who own guns that have lost that freedom for various reasons (im talking criminals mostly and those who have shown signs they pose a risk to society in whatever way)

Get ride of stupid things like "open carrying" when you have no plans on using it (not going out hunting ect)
I always shake my head in disbeleif when i see so many of those ignorent,arogent, embarressment too American people, walking up and down places in citys, outside police stations ect carring the biggest legal gun they can buy (it is just as stupid though even if it was a .45) while saying " Im just going about my day enjoying the freedom i have from the second ammendment blah blah..some geting police called on purpose just to show the camera..

REALITY CHECK- Why the fuck do you need to carry your gun if your doing normal un-gun related activities?

I know Americas kind of fucked itself by leting the problem get to this stage as i see the valid point (while this is assuming worst case..) because of the ammount of guns around now.

But again living proof being Australia, Canada, Uk, NZ, Ect.. you dont need a fucking gun in public lol. When you live the way we do (with our 'god given right' and FREEDOM (lol) too know your walking around the shops or where ever without even the smallest chance of needing a gun. That is Freedom. And yes, as you do we all also have the right too protect ourself. Its amazing what and how you can in so many ways that doesnt need a gun. Ive got shit on my keys that in that 0.01 chance someone tried to roll me with a knife, would easily be able to neautralize them.

As for protecting your familys.. u think we dont feel the same? I can think of so many things hear in the house that can be used too fuck up someone/people breaking in. Again, its a fact proven by living it, noone robs houses with guns. They just dont go together. Worst u will get should the unimaginable happen is a knife or bat nothing more than whats aleady in your house.

And i understand why you need cops at schools and thats sadly that same fuck up that Americas let itself get too such a point.

In a normal country Police are there too fight crime, needing them at a school wheres kids learn is such a fucking weird thought, i cant get my head around it.

Now too the "guns dont kill people, people kill people" - Thats true..but we dont like in a damn politically correct fairy tail.

REALITY- The difference between someone coming into a public place with intent to cause mass death person A. GUN person B. Knife would go something like tseedly
A= We have sadly seen.
B. Person would be lucky to get a second victim after the first. Many reasons why, too name a couple: People depending on there personal reactions will run (a knife is a close combat weapon) others will react with the natural fight/flight response and either take the person down (fighting, using anything with in reach) but most likely (definantly here in aus) is a group of the closest people will take the fucker down. Compare this too a weapon that can be used from a distance, much faster to go between victums ect. I remember its happend a few times on domestic flights here. A flight from melb to tasmania some guy smuggled shaponed wooden peice (like a torched sized peice of wood shaped into a tip) just as deadly as a knife, and almost as soon as he pulled it on one of the flight attendants he was on the ground in seconds. As naturally those in the rows near jumped up and took the cunt down. Unless Americans are weaker/or react in a less means of knowing what to do, and that definantly isnt true. We all would react as humans do.

I apologize for spelling and grammar errors. Its hard writting this noddy on some great white+ a laggy and shit samsung phone lol

If only everyone in the world took a 200mg MDMA pill then had a world wide talk.. i wonder what sort of things would be brain stormed lol.. sorry ranting should sleep

 

[cduggles]

The Constitution is a living document that is interpreted through the judiciary. It's not written in stone, and even the most clearly written rights in it are not immutable.

The perception that anything is guaranteed by the Constitution as written is a myth (see "free speech"). It's a testament to the effectiveness of groups like the NRA that some people believe that the Constitution gives them the absolute, unfettered right to own guns. It doesn't.

(And the idea that any existing militia could overthrow the government is laughable.)

Over 800 people were injured at the Mandalay Bay shooting in Vegas. There's no other weapon other than a bomb with which a single individual could cause that many casualties. And a motive for the shooting still hasn't come to light.

The idea that these shootings could have been prevented by law enforcement doesn't take into account the amount of scrutiny that shooters receive after the event that make it 'obvious'. A number of innocent people would fit certain criteria for potential mass shootings, and as is the case with the Mandalay Bay shooting, no criteria would fit others.

On some of the gun sites I read, the most ridiculous reasons are given for gun laws being useless. Yes, parts that increase firing rates can be made from a 3-D printer, but how many people have access to them?

However, some of the best reasons that gun laws are ineffective are also posted on gun sites. Laws that will actually prevent shootings, as opposed to laws that are passed just to appease the public or that only penalize law-abiding gun owners, need to be passed. The idea that legislation should be thoughtful and not just reactionary is not one I'm particularly hopeful about just yet.

I believe most gun owners are like me. They like to shoot, hunt, and would like to protect themselves in case of a break-in and the like.

But let's get real: semiautomatic weapons and the ease with which these guns can be modified to increase their firing rate, made these mass killings possible.

The gun lobby has a lot of power. It's going to take a lot of people demanding changes to gun legislation for meaningful change to happen. Gun owners need to be part of a thoughtful discussion to create effective legislation.

Unfortunately I think this thread isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[aihfl]

And the idea that any existing militia could overthrow the government is laughable.

This.

1. In the late 18th century, the populace and the British Army were pretty well matched in terms of military hardware. Even as early as the American Civil War the paradigm had changed. Despite having superior military tacticians (at least at first), the Confederate States of America could not stand up against the industrial might of the Union. The idea that a bunch of rednecks playing dress-up on the weekends and gallivanting around some woods, even with assault rifles, defeating a modern military, as cduggles pointed out, is laughable.

2. We may not have won (it almost certainly would have been a much longer conflict) without the support of the French, Spanish and Dutch. Not only were they competing for New World territory with the British, the French were still highly pissed over losing the French and Indian War. Were it not for the fact that the French a. they transported reinforcements, b. fought off the British fleet and c. protected Washington's Army in Virginia helping secure victory at Yorktown.

3. The British most likely were losing interest in trying to hold onto the rebellious colonies given that a quarter of their forces were German mercenaries.

Now, how else can I explain how what applied in 1776 doesn't apply in 2018?