• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

Would be? You can already do that in many ranges in the US.

So tell me. What do you consider a military grade weapon. As opposed to civilian grade? Like, what weapons that are legal and widely available now for civilians in the US would you say are military grade and shouldn't be legal? What makes them military grade in particular? What I'm asking is what qualities would you say make a weapon military grade and thus shouldn't be easily and widely available to ordinary American civilians.
 
I would say having any weapon with a 30 round magazine is rather unnecessary for a civilian, or the capability for effective fire at 45 rpm (rounds per minute). There is no reason a civilian should be allowed to own these.
 
No offense but I was particularly interested in tathras answer.

But I will say, there being no reason for something to be legal is a terrible reason to ban anything. All modern legal systems operate on the basis that something is legal unless legislated otherwise. And the onus should be to prove something should be banned. Not to prove something should be legal. For that reason I have nothing to say towards your point.

Also I'm not sure where the police fit into this for you. But the cops are civilians.
 
Not all guns are designed for warfare, there are many designed for hunting, target shooting, and the like. Weapons that are specifically designed to kill people as fast and efficiently as possible dont really have a place in the hands of civilians, usually the police are given at least some semblance of weapons training, whereas civilian courses consist of loading it correctly, not pointing it at people, and not shooting yourself.

And I don't think cops should be allowed to own them either, used in the line of duty, possibly, but personal ownership no chance.
 
The cops are civilians though.

But regardless. I do actually agree that anyone in control of a firearm should have basic safety training. And anyone wanting to carry one for self defense should be trained for that too.

So I agree that people should be trained. I just don't agree that the guns and training should be totally unavailable to regular people.

If you could cut mass shootings in America by 47% simply by enforcing immigration laws would you do it?

Do you have any evidence that stricter enforcement of immigration laws would actually cut it by 47%? Cause otherwise I see little point in even raising the question at all.
 
I never said guns or training should be unavailable to regular people, I said military weapons shouldn't be, there is a massive difference between a rifle meant to hunt deer, and a rifle meant to kill men in a warzone.

Edit: how would enforcing immigration stop white men from committing these shootings exactly.
 
Last edited:
Would be? You can already do that in many ranges in the US.

So tell me. What do you consider a military grade weapon. As opposed to civilian grade? Like, what weapons that are legal and widely available now for civilians in the US would you say are military grade and shouldn't be legal? What makes them military grade in particular? What I'm asking is what qualities would you say make a weapon military grade and thus shouldn't be easily and widely available to ordinary American civilians.

civilians have no need for lethal anti-personel weapons, and police especially shouldn't have ANY lethal weaponry.
 
Do you have any evidence that stricter enforcement of immigration laws would actually cut it by 47%? Cause otherwise I see little point in even raising the question at all.
[h=3]AMAZING NEW BREAKTHROUGH TO REDUCE MASS SHOOTINGS![/h]February 21, 2018


There have been about 34 mass shootings since 2000. Forty-seven percent -- 16 -- were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e. people who never would have been here but for Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act.

And the immigrant mass shootings have been some of the most spectacular ones, such as Fort Hood and San Bernardino. Two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, at Virginia Tech in 2007 and at the Pulse Nightclub in 2016, were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e., people who were in this country because Teddy was pouting in his room and refused to come out until he got his own legacy.



(Excluded from both lists: the Las Vegas shooting, because law enforcement has released nothing but lies about it, so that shooting remains unclassifiable; family dispute shootings; targeted assassinations of police officers; and shootings on Indian reservations.)

Here's the list of immigrant mass shootings, defined as a shooting at the same general time and location, not during the commission of another crime, that leaves at least four people dead -- i.e. no gangland shootings, no "man kills family, then self" and no drug deals gone bad.

On account of the Rule of Journalism that permits the word "immigrant" to be used only in sentences with the word "valedictorian," you may not have heard of some of these mass shootings at all.

1) Omar Mateen, son of Afghan immigrants, killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016.

2) First- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire at a community center Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, on Dec. 2, 2015, killing 14 people.

3) English immigrant Christopher Harper-Mercer killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in southwest Oregon on Oct. 1, 2015.

4) Kuwaiti immigrant Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed five people in attacks on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015.

5) Second-generation Malaysian immigrant Elliot Rodger killed six people on May 23, 2014, around the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

6) Second-generation immigrant John Zawahri opened fire at his Southern California home and later at the campus of Santa Monica College on June 7, 2013, killing five in all. (The New York Times never mentioned that he was the child of Lebanese immigrants. The Times didn't even mention that his father used to beat up his mother, despite that paper's usual heightened interest in stories about men being mean to women.)

7) Cuban immigrant Pedro Alberto Vargas fatally shot six people in his apartment complex in Hialeah, Florida, on July 26, 2013.

8) Probable Barbadian immigrant Aaron Alexis shot and killed 12 people inside the Washington Navy Yard on Sept. 16, 2013. (See this.)

9) South Korean immigrant One L. Goh opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland, California, killing seven people on April 2, 2012.

10) Mexican immigrant Eduardo Sencion shot up an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, on Sept. 6, 2011, killing four people -- three National Guardsmen and a 67-year-old woman.

11) Second-generation immigrant Nidal Malik Hasan, son of Palestinian immigrants, killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2009.

12) Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong shot up the Binghamton, New York, American Civic Association on April 3, 2009, killing 13.

13) Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic fatally shot five people at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City on Feb. 12, 2007.

14) Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean immigrant, slaughtered 32 people at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007.

15) Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang killed six hunters in northern Wisconsin on Nov. 21, 2004.

16) Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia shot up the Windy City Core Supply warehouse in Chicago in 2003, killing six of his former co-workers.





http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-02-21.html#read_more
 
So you found 16 shootings by immigrants In the last 18 years, that's less than 1 a year, as opposed to the 30 this year committed by U.S. citizens.
 
Statistically, depending on your definition of first and second generation immigrant, you'd expect at least 36%of the shootings to be committed by 1st and 2nd generation immigrants simply by virtue of their proportion of the population.

By that logic, we could cut the number of mass shootings in half by simply killing 1 in every 2 Americans. Hardly a compelling argument.

And that's not even getting into what proportion of that 47% were legal immigrants and would still be here with stricter enforcement. Stricter enforcement of the law isn't the same as changing the law. And you suggested that enforcing the law was all that was needed.

Given that you've presented nothing to suggest stronger enforcement of existing law would have excluded even a small number of those 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from having been in America. And just about nothing to suggest that their proportion of mass shootings is particularly disproportionate to their population and socioeconomic size.

Your whole question is still baseless. With virtually no evidence to suggest that agreeing with it would actually do anything.

We could also eliminate school shootings entirely by closing down all schools across the country. No school means no school to shoot people in.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
 
It's never too early for these kids to learn that Congress will walk over every last one of thier dead bodies to get that lobbyist "donation"..when thier efforts fail miserably to come close to gun reform.

They think their 17 dead highschool class mates matter? If a mass shooting of 5 yr olds and one with hundreds of deaths did nothing ...these kids are better served staying home and smoking weed.

Sorry if this is cynical. But we are talking about dismantling the way that governments have worked since they existed. Not any easy feat.

It's not a matter of left or right . If every single republicans suddenly was raptured by Jesus tomorrow and we were left with only Dems, it's definite that half of them would steop up and do the NRAs bidding immediately



I
 
Last edited:
I never said guns or training should be unavailable to regular people, I said military weapons shouldn't be, there is a massive difference between a rifle meant to hunt deer, and a rifle meant to kill men in a warzone.

Edit: how would enforcing immigration stop white men from committing these shootings exactly.

They wouldn't be so depressed that Mexicans stole thier jobs.

Yet they should be more depressed in themselves that they are white and we're competing with no English speaking illegals for jobs in the first place. Maybe they should've worked harder in life like conservatives love to preach
 
Personally, I'm glad we don't just do whatever victims or the family of victims of tragedy say we should do politically. Often their ideas are terrible.

I'm sick of people using the "something bad happened to me or someone I cared about so I get to have some great, wise, and automatically correct opinion on the subject" trick.

It's nothing but propaganda. It's going, I had something bad happen to me so I can use that to shut up anyone who disagrees with me. And it's bullshit.

It says a lot about how terrible society is. We are all too fucking dumb to use logic or brains to discuss anything. So we gotta resort to cheap tricks and propaganda cause it's the only thing people respond too.

Fuck people man.

I never said guns or training should be unavailable to regular people, I said military weapons shouldn't be, there is a massive difference between a rifle meant to hunt deer, and a rifle meant to kill men in a warzone.

Edit: how would enforcing immigration stop white men from committing these shootings exactly.

How exactly is there a massive difference? I asked tathra this but got no reply. Guess I'll try again.
 
So what you're saying is that you don't think any guns should be available to any civilians at all?

not at all. "can be used to kill people" is not the same as "designed to kill people". hunting rifles would naturally be fine. i think certain derringers would probably be an ok exception for self-defense.
 
not at all. "can be used to kill people" is not the same as "designed to kill people". hunting rifles would naturally be fine. i think certain derringers would probably be an ok exception for self-defense.

So then I'll go back to what I asked before and just recently. What guns are OK and what aren't, and for what reason? The term you used that first prompted me to ask was military grade.

Though this does bring up something else I'm increasingly feeling compelled to ask more broadly. And what's what exactly is a hunting rifle? What makes a hunting rifle a hunting rifle vs a military rifle in technical terms.

Cause if it were to ever be law there will need to be a technical definition.

People keep talking about how it's designed as a criteria. But the design question tends to be more a matter of marketing than anything else. So open question, what makes a it a hunting rifle vs a military rifle, apart from advertising.

And what about the fact that some rifles used in both military and civilian applications are entirely identical? Or the fact that virtually none of the rifles commonly considered by the public to be assault weapons and that have been used in recent mass shootings actually are completely the same as the standard issue rifles used by most modern militaries?

What is the difference?
 
Mentioned above: the "cooling off" period of x days is believed to help prevent suicides.

Obviously you can find studies that disagree (funded by....), but I would think that this would be one type of shooting where a waiting period might be helpful.
 
Top