Jump to content
Raven

General "mass killings" thread

Recommended Posts

There was a shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California, located just outside of Silicon Valley about a week ago.

The shooter legally bought a gun from Nevada. 3 people were dead and 12 people were wounded. According to the coroner, it seems the shooter killed himself, so maybe the shooter realized he does not stand much of a chance after the cops showed up. I wish we were able to take him alive instead of allowing him an easy quick death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand it right, and that the police showed up 20 seconds after the shooter started firing, and had him dead in 30 from their engagement. Then, is it is really possible for police on the ground to do any more for reducing casualties? If in a mere 20 seconds a shooter can kill 9 and injure 27, then can anything less be achieved by a police presence alone?

I'm just amazed an officer was able to process the sound of gunshots, assume it was an active criminal shooter, figure out and move their body in the direction of the shooter, identify the shooter, grab their firearm and take aim, and lastly fire at the shooter. All in the span of that 20 seconds. I assumed all mortals would take a lot longer than that to react through each of the above steps to reach the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're absolutely right. do pro-guns people want to provide insight as to why we should allow people to legally obtain not only the weapons used for war but also equipment that simply makes murder sprees easier? why do civilians need extended mags, bulletproof vests, assault rifles, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you're absolutely right. do pro-guns people want to provide insight as to why we should allow people to legally obtain not only the weapons used for war but also equipment that simply makes murder sprees easier? why do civilians need extended mags, bulletproof vests, assault rifles, etc?

If it is a daily warzone, you'll need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you're absolutely right. do pro-guns people want to provide insight as to why we should allow people to legally obtain not only the weapons used for war but also equipment that simply makes murder sprees easier? why do civilians need extended mags, bulletproof vests, assault rifles, etc?

I am a left leaning moderate, so not your typical pro gun person.

As a social libertarian, I see excessive gun control from the left no different from the harsh immigration rules from the right. I despise most forms of direct social control.

Yes, assault rifles are primarily tools of war, but banning them makes little sense if criminals can use other tools like cars, knives, IEDs, etc. to harm or kill. In my opinion, the cost of banning firearms does not outweigh the benefit. Unless there is a national emergency like an invasion or something, sacrificing freedom for security is not a trade I will support. Some people legitimately enjoy owning and/or shooting guns, and their right to such enjoyment should not be infringed just because a few wackos were on a murder spree.

Bullet proof vests should not even be lumped with firearms as it is a form of protection, not a weapon.

I am fine with more background checks, training, licensing requirements, tax on gun ownership, etc. as long as it is within reason, like owning a car. These are policies that I support since they do not actively restrict people's freedoms, and enjoying the right to own firearms should come with some responsibility. However, any hard restrictions like bans and magazine limits crosses the line in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-we-must-stop-video-games-that-celebrate-violence-11778094

it's good to know that mr. trump is really zeroing in on the real culprits once again

(with the exception of perhaps, mental health - but do we really expect anything to get done? It's just a thing that is used as an obfuscation and is forgotten about as soon as it is said)

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XRay said:

I am a left leaning moderate, so not your typical pro gun person.

As a social libertarian, I see excessive gun control from the left no different from the harsh immigration rules from the right. I despise most forms of direct social control.

Yes, assault rifles are primarily tools of war, but banning them makes little sense if criminals can use other tools like cars, knives, IEDs, etc. to harm or kill. In my opinion, the cost of banning firearms does not outweigh the benefit. Unless there is a national emergency like an invasion or something, sacrificing freedom for security is not a trade I will support. Some people legitimately enjoy owning and/or shooting guns, and their right to such enjoyment should not be infringed just because a few wackos were on a murder spree.

Bullet proof vests should not even be lumped with firearms as it is a form of protection, not a weapon.

I am fine with more background checks, training, licensing requirements, tax on gun ownership, etc. as long as it is within reason, like owning a car. These are policies that I support since they do not actively restrict people's freedoms, and enjoying the right to own firearms should come with some responsibility. However, any hard restrictions like bans and magazine limits crosses the line in my opinion.

in what way(s) do you feel gun control is direct social control? it's product control. is boeing's 737 max being temporarily unflyable social control? is recalling social control? i don't think it is--when it becomes clear that the product is an issue, you make attempts to get rid of the product. immigration and gun control are nothing alike. to reiterate--one deals with a product and the other real people. abortion banning, for example, is another example of "social" control. banning certain tools used to administer abortions, especially in the name of safety, is product control.

the enjoyment of something is not an argument for why it should continue to exist. i enjoy explosives. should i get to play with explosives, even in a controlled environment? the issue we face is: guns are dangerous. they have been used to murder and terrorize the public across the united states unlike anywhere else in the western world. and for those places that have more gun violence, it's because access to weapons is an unfortunately small part of the rest of their problems. baltimore, though still in the us, is an interesting microcosm of what i'm talking about: guns are definitely part of the issue, but getting rid of guns there will not suddenly fix all of baltimore's issues. but most places in the united states are not like baltimore. a young man dressed as the joker shot up a movie theater in denver. there's virtually nothing anyone could realistically do in that situation; and, we can squarely place blame on the weapons of war the perpetrator used that allowed him to cause so much harm. if that man couldn't get his hands on the stuff he did (which he did legally) that tragedy simply would not have happened.

it isn't a "few" wackos. you're using mental instability both as a scapegoat to erase the other issues with gun proliferation and to undercut the seriousness of mass shootings. sometimes it is mentally unstable people. sometimes these shootings are a result of political extremism. these two kinds of people should not be conflated!

guns are also argued to be protection. i would need to know the facts first, but i am willing to bet more people die as a result of gunmen owning vests than civilians live by owning them. 99.99% of civilians don't have any reason to wear a bulletproof vest. especially on a daily basis, which is what you would probably do, right?

ironically, it sounds like you're more for social control-type policies that would limit the number of people that could purchase guns. they actively restrict freedoms--but they do not directly restrict them (think voting laws vs product bans), i think you've got the purpose of those kinds of laws confused.

can you explain to me why a civilian needs extended magazines?

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phoenix, was there a reason that you hold this opinion on gun control now? as I recall, you used to not exactly be in favour of it. or am I mistaken?

i personally think the enjoyment of something is the best argument when it comes to guns, though the cost of this is to be admitted. which is to say, the other arguments are not good.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

can you explain to me why a civilian needs extended magazines?

They don't but most gun deaths do not involve such things.

Trump's ban of bump stocks is more gun control than Obama ended up imposing despite all the fear-mongering the right did to Gun owners and banning accessories in order to gain brownie points with people getting sick of mass shootings may not be the best way to tackle the issue. Truth is, gun owners that aren't nuts would be willing to impose some gun control laws to make it more difficult for nutcases to get guns, shoot up people and make gun owners look bad and that would be more effective at mitigating gun deaths overall than trying to push a sweeping removal of guns in the country, that will never succeed.

The key is to remove the NRA from the conversation and get rid of politicians taking money from the NRA but good luck making that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Trump talk about the recent events on the news here and he started talking about how the internet and video games are to blame. He doesn't seem to understand that other places in the world also have these things and somehow don't have these issues. 

There is however something to be said about the internet part. I have no doubt that a lot of people do get radicalized on the internet, however the very people Trump appeals to are the kind of people that tend to get radicalized.

Gods it was hard to watch that news footage. I almost teared up, which is something I don't tend to do all that quickly. Living in a place where these kind of events are common place is quite horrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

in what way(s) do you feel gun control is direct social control? it's product control. is boeing's 737 max being temporarily unflyable social control? is recalling social control? i don't think it is--when it becomes clear that the product is an issue, you make attempts to get rid of the product. immigration and gun control are nothing alike. to reiterate--one deals with a product and the other real people. abortion banning, for example, is another example of "social" control. banning certain tools used to administer abortions, especially in the name of safety, is product control.

 the enjoyment of something is not an argument for why it should continue to exist. i enjoy explosives. should i get to play with explosives, even in a controlled environment? the issue we face is: guns are dangerous. they have been used to murder and terrorize the public across the united states unlike anywhere else in the western world. and for those places that have more gun violence, it's because access to weapons is an unfortunately small part of the rest of their problems. baltimore, though still in the us, is an interesting microcosm of what i'm talking about: guns are definitely part of the issue, but getting rid of guns there will not suddenly fix all of baltimore's issues. but most places in the united states are not like baltimore. a young man dressed as the joker shot up a movie theater in denver. there's virtually nothing anyone could realistically do in that situation; and, we can squarely place blame on the weapons of war the perpetrator used that allowed him to cause so much harm. if that man couldn't get his hands on the stuff he did (which he did legally) that tragedy simply would not have happened.

it isn't a "few" wackos. you're using mental instability both as a scapegoat to erase the other issues with gun proliferation and to undercut the seriousness of mass shootings. sometimes it is mentally unstable people. sometimes these shootings are a result of political extremism. these two kinds of people should not be conflated!

guns are also argued to be protection. i would need to know the facts first, but i am willing to bet more people die as a result of gunmen owning vests than civilians live by owning them. 99.99% of civilians don't have any reason to wear a bulletproof vest. especially on a daily basis, which is what you would probably do, right?

ironically, it sounds like you're more for social control-type policies that would limit the number of people that could purchase guns. they actively restrict freedoms--but they do not directly restrict them (think voting laws vs product bans), i think you've got the purpose of those kinds of laws confused.

can you explain to me why a civilian needs extended magazines?

I see product control as a type social control. I am fine with gun control as long as it is reasonable. Licensing requirements, mandatory training, etc. are fine and I support those policies for safety reasons. The minor inconveniences these policies impose do not restrict a reasonable person from owning and enjoying firearms. Bans and limits do restrict a reasonable person from owning and enjoying firearms, and I do not support these policies.

The freedom to enjoy something IS an argument for why something should exist. Alcohol does nothing productive but intoxicates people and could potentially make a person violent and kill people, but that does not mean alcohol should be banned.

It is a few wackos. Nobody would consider a mass shooter or political extremist as a reasonable person. Yes, mass shooting rates are higher in the United States, but it could have been mass killings utilizing other forms of weapons, so banning guns does not solve the problem that there will be mass killers.

99.99% or civilians do not have a reason to own riot shields or medieval style armors either, but banning things simply due to association is horrible. I can just as easily argue that a lot of recent shooters have played violent videogames or are religious, so violent videogames and the Bible therefore should be banned.

Extended magazines allows a shooter to shoot without reloading as often. I imagine being able to unloading a large magazine of bullets with an automatic rifle would be satisfying for some gun owners.

3 hours ago, Tryhard said:

https://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-we-must-stop-video-games-that-celebrate-violence-11778094

it's good to know that mr. trump is really zeroing in on the real culprits once again

(with the exception of perhaps, mental health - but do we really expect anything to get done? It's just a thing that is used as an obfuscation and is forgotten about as soon as it is said)

Fucking asshole. I am sick of people blaming videogames and social media. People who are unhinged are mentally ill due to other reasons, and the fact that they use videogames and social media does not mean those mediums cause it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Rallies

The White House

Congress

NRA Convention

The National Republican Convention

Mar-a-Lago

Republican Town Hall meetings

 

All of these places are "gun free zones". Democrats should call out their Hypocrisy and push a bill to allow gun owners their right to have their guns at those locations and see how those "thoughts and prayers" fuckers like it. After all, according to Mike Huckabee Sanders, it's not the guns, it's the lack of thoughts and prayers. Surely there's enough thoughts and prayers are these locations right?

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Fucking asshole. I am sick of people blaming videogames and social media. People who are unhinged are mentally ill due to other reasons, and the fact that they use videogames and social media does not mean those mediums cause it.

Politicians have nothing on video games leading to a mass shooting and they'll never have it. Blaming video games for it is the same as not saying anything.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine an America where guys named Ahmed and Abdul and Rasheed were posting manifestos on known jihadist websites + carrying out these kinds of attacks on our schools and shopping centers and street festivals with the frequency of 4chaners and /pol redditers.

What do you suppose the government response would be?

Lowkey--this is the real "War on Terror"

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Imagine an America where guys named Ahmed and Abdul and Rasheed were posting manifestos on known jihadist websites + carrying out these kinds of attacks on our schools and shopping centers and street festivals with the frequency of 4chaners and /pol redditers.

What do you suppose the government response would be?

There would be raids and Republicans pushing and justifying them much like the Iraq war. Both parties would be on board.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 4:35 AM, Interdimensional Observer said:

If I understand it right, and that the police showed up 20 seconds after the shooter started firing, and had him dead in 30 from their engagement. Then, is it is really possible for police on the ground to do any more for reducing casualties? If in a mere 20 seconds a shooter can kill 9 and injure 27, then can anything less be achieved by a police presence alone?

I'm just amazed an officer was able to process the sound of gunshots, assume it was an active criminal shooter, figure out and move their body in the direction of the shooter, identify the shooter, grab their firearm and take aim, and lastly fire at the shooter. All in the span of that 20 seconds. I assumed all mortals would take a lot longer than that to react through each of the above steps to reach the same result.

You're assuming they're thinking before they're acting. There are after all countless incidence where the police do in fact shoot innocent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tryhard said:

phoenix, was there a reason that you hold this opinion on gun control now? as I recall, you used to not exactly be in favour of it. or am I mistaken?

i personally think the enjoyment of something is the best argument when it comes to guns, though the cost of this is to be admitted. which is to say, the other arguments are not good.

the united states has mass shootings more regularly than many countries, probably all countries that have a reliable count of them. in your opinion, what are the reasons for this? in my opinion, there's a good number of them, but chiefly it's our access to guns.

ultimately, i don't have a problem with gun ranges. or shooting for sport, or whatever. but we need to get guns out of the hands of those who would weaponize them for terror. even in my state of california it is still too easy to get a gun.

part of it is also that i just don't get it. i think guns are cool and i enjoy talking about them, but 100% of the people i know personally have no reason to own one for "protection," yet that's their reasoning for it. i don't understand why americans feel like they deserve to be equipped like soldiers (or at least nearly so. you can buy just about everything an army pfc has access to). i think the 2nd amendment is due for an edit; the world has changed too much for that right to make sense anymore. weapons are too deadly.

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

They don't but most gun deaths do not involve such things.

Trump's ban of bump stocks is more gun control than Obama ended up imposing despite all the fear-mongering the right did to Gun owners and banning accessories in order to gain brownie points with people getting sick of mass shootings may not be the best way to tackle the issue. Truth is, gun owners that aren't nuts would be willing to impose some gun control laws to make it more difficult for nutcases to get guns, shoot up people and make gun owners look bad and that would be more effective at mitigating gun deaths overall than trying to push a sweeping removal of guns in the country, that will never succeed.

The key is to remove the NRA from the conversation and get rid of politicians taking money from the NRA but good luck making that happen.

my point is there's no reason to have them and when they are involved the perpetrators are often much more deadly. 

money out of politics is certainly a good start.... 😞

5 hours ago, XRay said:

I see product control as a type social control. I am fine with gun control as long as it is reasonable. Licensing requirements, mandatory training, etc. are fine and I support those policies for safety reasons. The minor inconveniences these policies impose do not restrict a reasonable person from owning and enjoying firearms. Bans and limits do restrict a reasonable person from owning and enjoying firearms, and I do not support these policies.

The freedom to enjoy something IS an argument for why something should exist. Alcohol does nothing productive but intoxicates people and could potentially make a person violent and kill people, but that does not mean alcohol should be banned.

It is a few wackos. Nobody would consider a mass shooter or political extremist as a reasonable person. Yes, mass shooting rates are higher in the United States, but it could have been mass killings utilizing other forms of weapons, so banning guns does not solve the problem that there will be mass killers.

99.99% or civilians do not have a reason to own riot shields or medieval style armors either, but banning things simply due to association is horrible. I can just as easily argue that a lot of recent shooters have played violent videogames or are religious, so violent videogames and the Bible therefore should be banned.

Extended magazines allows a shooter to shoot without reloading as often. I imagine being able to unloading a large magazine of bullets with an automatic rifle would be satisfying for some gun owners.

Fucking asshole. I am sick of people blaming videogames and social media. People who are unhinged are mentally ill due to other reasons, and the fact that they use videogames and social media does not mean those mediums cause it.

if you see product control as a type of social control, then "social control" has lost all meaning to me. please define it for me. all laws are social control, are they not? they all have the purpose of limiting your ability to do something, usually perceived for the greater good.

4 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Trump Rallies

The White House

Congress

NRA Convention

The National Republican Convention

Mar-a-Lago

Republican Town Hall meetings

 

All of these places are "gun free zones". Democrats should call out their Hypocrisy and push a bill to allow gun owners their right to have their guns at those locations and see how those "thoughts and prayers" fuckers like it. After all, according to Mike Huckabee Sanders, it's not the guns, it's the lack of thoughts and prayers. Surely there's enough thoughts and prayers are these locations right?

Politicians have nothing on video games leading to a mass shooting and they'll never have it. Blaming video games for it is the same as not saying anything.

this is a good idea for a dialogue to start imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i forgot to add this and it's not letting me edit the post lol: @xray

 

alcohol has stringent laws surrounding its production, use, etc. it's not like alcohol simply exists freely in any society. enjoyment of dangerous things is not a very good argument to keep things.

it doesn't matter if they're unreasonable, they're unreasonable for entirely different reasons, that's why you shouldn't conflate the 2. mass killings in other forms would have far fewer body counts...which is partly my point...you can't kill 70 people with a knife.

it's "horrible"? really? what's "horrible" about it? the difference is videogames and other forms of media are not proven in any capacity to influence mass shootings (or other forms of violence). riot shields, extended mags, etc actively make it easier for these terrorists to kill and protect themselves at the same time. i have no idea why you brought up medieval armor.

again, something being satisfying is not a reason to continue doing that something. lots of people enjoy dangerous, banned things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jotari said:

You're assuming they're thinking before they're acting. There are after all countless incidence where the police do in fact shoot innocent people.

Well for once it didn't have negative consequences maybe?🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️ I didn't consider it was instinct without thought (the cause of police brutality?), thanks for bringing that to my attention.

My greater point was that this situation was practically realistically perfect in police response time. It would have required the police officer and the shooter to be in the same small room, so close in proximity that'd I reason the shooter would have to know the police person was there. Which sounds too close for them to try shooting up the place because of how quickly they'd be brought down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the united states has mass shootings more regularly than many countries, probably all countries that have a reliable count of them. in your opinion, what are the reasons for this? in my opinion, there's a good number of them, but chiefly it's our access to guns.

ultimately, i don't have a problem with gun ranges. or shooting for sport, or whatever. but we need to get guns out of the hands of those who would weaponize them for terror. even in my state of california it is still too easy to get a gun.

part of it is also that i just don't get it. i think guns are cool and i enjoy talking about them, but 100% of the people i know personally have no reason to own one for "protection," yet that's their reasoning for it. i don't understand why americans feel like they deserve to be equipped like soldiers (or at least nearly so. you can buy just about everything an army pfc has access to). i think the 2nd amendment is due for an edit; the world has changed too much for that right to make sense anymore. weapons are too deadly.

I don't get it either. Protection and tyrannical government justifications are extremely flimsy to me. Recreational use I can at least commend for honesty, even if I personally will never see the appeal.

I agree that a large part of this is due to easy access to firearms, but I don't think tackling that should be the only issue. I would suggest that in addition to gun control methods, the United States should also be looking at an emphasis on mental health awareness and acceptance, and funding for anti-extremist groups. Evidently, I reject the notion that the US is just "more violent" than other countries.

Gun control has many avenues including very popular ones from the public that are far removed from the 'grab the guns' narrative that certain types would have you believe. Not having as many guns in circulation through buybacks where possible, actually putting some restrictions on proper training and usage of a firearm including storage for gun owners so that kids don't pick up a gun and shoot them with it, which is another issue that happens all the time in the US. The big problem with gun control laws is that they need to be done federally to have any effect. If your state implements harsh gun control laws, then it still isn't going to help when people drag them in from surrounding states other than maybe making it slightly harder for them to sell them (but probably not much).

Mental health is the pivot that Republicans will usually go to, but they seem unwilling to fund anything that would help in that area either. The US is known for having particularly bad stigmas and views towards those suffering - you just need to look at the conflation of mental illness and ringing of hands for that after these mass shootings. Most mentally ill people are not aggressive, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that a better societal acceptance of such issues would not be a bad thing, including reactions to those being abused (or being abusive or showing cruelty, towards animals or otherwise).

Funding for anti-extremist branches of government have been slashed, particularly in relation to far-right domestic terrorists. Where possible, government enforcement should work with local communities in order to detect possible radical groups, and actually put pressure on them. (instead of, in many cases with shooters, visiting them once and leaving - it's happened several times in the past) This is for all types of terrorism, and if you actually attempt to work with communities instead of making them pariahs, you may see better results (such as happened in Canada where there were multiple cases of Imams and Muslims reporting radicals that were planning bomb attacks). This is one that may be looked at as a crackdown on liberty or something like that, but provided it is done in the right way with community outreach and action after reasonable suspicion, it doesn't need to be.

But of course, apparently defunding one of these branches to combat far-right terrorism was the thing to do.

In addition to preventing mass shootings, you would also be helping matters in terms of accidents with firearms if somewhat trained and responsible individuals are the main owners of firearms, for the mentally ill, the majority of which are far more likely to hurt themselves than others, reduce gun suicides (easy access to firearms makes an easy suicide... while suicidal people may still do so through other methods, they will likely not be as guaranteed - i.e "what if it goes wrong?"), and stopping proliferation of radical or militant groups.

But now I'm expecting the US government to do anything about gun control, mental health awareness or combating extremism, so I suppose I'm just dreaming.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Protection and tyrannical government justifications are extremely flimsy to me.

The bolded excuse falls flat for me, because any country with reasonable constitutional rights to firearms would keep things limited to that which the government could counter without fail.

The AR-15 is strong, but want to know something? Governments have tanks, tanks were invented to laugh at machine guns in WWI. No amount of AR-15s will stop tanks.

If you want civilians to be prepared to counter tanks from tyrannical government, then you must legalize either explosives like mines and IEDs that can go under the tanks and destroy them from down there, or you legalize Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). Or you legalize tanks with their own anti-tank turrets.

But even if you legalize RPGs or tanks, governments have air forces. Air forces have bombers, fighters, and drones; guns and tanks can't reach these. Besides crudely flying drones into their engines, to counter these, you'd need legalized fighter jets, or surface-to-air missiles. And need I list the commercial airport dangers that'd come with legalizing SA missiles?

Ultimately, tyrannical governments are defined by their refusal to abide by the law. Therefore, in the case of true tyranny, constitutional rights are void and the right of citizens to fight back and use whatever weaponry is necessary to do so exists on extralegal universal human principles to freedom and good government.*

There was no US Constitution at the time of the American Revolutionary War. And the 2nd Amendment never existed during thousands of other failed or successful violent uprisings with sincerely good causes behind them, and yet, the people took up arms anyhow. 2A does not magically permit that to happen.

-The tyranny argument might have worked better back in the day of muskets, when the Constitution was written. Back then, the military might of governments over civilians wouldn't have been as great. But this argument doesn't hold water now.

 

 

*Not that people always will take up arms when tyranny exists. Because, failure is always an option when attempting liberation, and many people don't want to take up that risk.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The bolded excuse falls flat for me, because any country with reasonable constitutional rights to firearms would keep things limited to that which the government could counter without fail.

The AR-15 is strong, but want to know something? Governments have tanks, tanks were invented to laugh at machine guns in WWI. No amount of AR-15s will stop tanks.

If you want civilians to be prepared to counter tanks from tyrannical government, then you must legalize either explosives like mines and IEDs that can go under the tanks and destroy them from down there, or you legalize Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). Or you legalize tanks with their own anti-tank turrets.

But even if you legalize RPGs or tanks, governments have air forces. Air forces have bombers, fighters, and drones; guns and tanks can't reach these. Besides crudely flying drones into their engines, to counter these, you'd need legalized fighter jets, or surface-to-air missiles. And need I list the commercial airport dangers that'd come with legalizing SA missiles?

Ultimately, tyrannical governments are defined by their refusal to abide by the law. Therefore, in the case of true tyranny, constitutional rights are void and the right of citizens to fight back and use whatever weaponry is necessary to do so exists on extralegal universal human principles to freedom and good government.

There was no US Constitution at the time of the American Revolutionary War. And the 2nd Amendment never existed during thousands of other failed or successful violent uprisings with sincerely good causes behind them, and yet, the people took up arms anyhow. 2A does not magically permit that to happen.

It was never mean for protection against tyrannical government, it's all about profit and money for the arm dealers.

If they can sell guns and sells armors, it's about double profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Governments have tanks, tanks were invented to laugh at machine guns in WWI. No amount of AR-15s will stop tanks.

To be absolutely fair, precise close range shots, or just killing whoever is within the tanks with the AR-15 is an effective way to stop tanks. Granted that takes incredible luck or skill, but it's not impossible for someone with just an AR-15 to stop a tank.

Regardless, to take care of the epidemic of shootings, it's clear a significant increase in gun control laws is necessary. While I personally am not a fan of out-right banning a certain variety of guns, I'm starting to think that's a boundary we're going to need to pass.

Of course, just gun control isn't enough. We need to improve our healthcare, and more specifically the fields that focus on mental health. The willingness to say that it's all due to mental health, but the sheer lack of willingness to fund any kind of improvement in that area is infuriating. We need to start pushing those in power to take actions, and to stick to their words. 

I also think we need to make our politics in general more moderate. We're shifting into very extreme mindsets as we keep moving on, and often this stops us from cooperating. In order to solve this, action needs to occur, and action will only occur if both sides are calm and understanding enough to allow the changes to occur, even if it's some things they don't like. Our extremist politics are basically the opposite of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the united states has mass shootings more regularly than many countries, probably all countries that have a reliable count of them. in your opinion, what are the reasons for this? in my opinion, there's a good number of them, but chiefly it's our access to guns.

ultimately, i don't have a problem with gun ranges. or shooting for sport, or whatever. but we need to get guns out of the hands of those who would weaponize them for terror. even in my state of california it is still too easy to get a gun.

While I agree that access to guns increases the death count of an individual mass shooting, however access to guns does not increase the number mass shooting incidents. Taking away guns is not going to decrease the amount of mass killers out there. In my opinion, the chief problem with mass shootings is not the form of weapon used, it is the fact that there is not a strong enough vetting system to prevent crazy people from owning guns.

2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

 part of it is also that i just don't get it. i think guns are cool and i enjoy talking about them, but 100% of the people i know personally have no reason to own one for "protection," yet that's their reasoning for it. i don't understand why americans feel like they deserve to be equipped like soldiers (or at least nearly so. you can buy just about everything an army pfc has access to). i think the 2nd amendment is due for an edit; the world has changed too much for that right to make sense anymore. weapons are too deadly.

It is probably a cultural thing. I probably adore Obama as much as a British person adores their royalty, but other than Obama I do not really have the same level of affection for any other president. The closest will probably be Joe Biden if he becomes president. Similarly, the level of admiration for guns by Americans probably is something foreigners would not get.

At least in California, not anyone can get a gun. A person needs a reason to own a gun, and protection is a legitimate reason. Some examples include living in a neighborhood with a relatively high crime rate or having a job that can be dangerous (being a liquor store owner, a truck driver assigned on an unpopulated route, etc.).

For advocates of harsh gun control, the Second Amendment is fine as is and it is not due for an edit. With the way it is worded, the right to own arms is entwined with the state's right to organize a militia. It is not meant for an individual's right to own firearms without the responsibility of joining the police, militia, armed forces, etc. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court have stretched and twisted the wording to include an individual's right to own arms and I do not think that is appropriate.

"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."

For advocates of gun ownership, the wording of the Second Amendment should be revised to exclude the militia requirement and decouple the right to bear arms to the responsibility of joining some kind of government security force.

2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

if you see product control as a type of social control, then "social control" has lost all meaning to me. please define it for me. all laws are social control, are they not? they all have the purpose of limiting your ability to do something, usually perceived for the greater good.

Most laws are reasonable and I can generally do whatever I want as long as it does not hurt people or cause a nuisance. Any right or freedom not enumerated in the Constitution, legal codes, etc. are still assumed to exist and it belongs to the people, and I have faith that our lawmakers word our laws to be as unobtrusive as possible to maximize the benefit to the greater good without significantly reducing personal freedom.

2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

sorry i forgot to add this and it's not letting me edit the post lol: @xray

 

alcohol has stringent laws surrounding its production, use, etc. it's not like alcohol simply exists freely in any society. enjoyment of dangerous things is not a very good argument to keep things.

it doesn't matter if they're unreasonable, they're unreasonable for entirely different reasons, that's why you shouldn't conflate the 2. mass killings in other forms would have far fewer body counts...which is partly my point...you can't kill 70 people with a knife.

it's "horrible"? really? what's "horrible" about it? the difference is videogames and other forms of media are not proven in any capacity to influence mass shootings (or other forms of violence). riot shields, extended mags, etc actively make it easier for these terrorists to kill and protect themselves at the same time. i have no idea why you brought up medieval armor.

again, something being satisfying is not a reason to continue doing that something. lots of people enjoy dangerous, banned things.

In the United States, there are no stringent laws surrounding the production of alcohol for personal use, at least not any that I know. I can make as much wine, beer, liquor and whatever alcohol I want in my own home to be shared with friends and family. As long as I am not selling it, I do not have any restrictions.

Outlawing bullet proof vests is horrible. It is a form of protection, not a weapon. And how are you going to prove that the protection I am wearing is a bullet proof vest when I can argue that it is simply a medieval styled armor, or that my vest is simply weighted with a thick steel plate for exercise purposes? Outlawing bullet proof vests is a slippery slope that can get other things banned for no good reason.

I enjoyed weed, and I would love to at least try out cocaine and other hard drugs. I believe those should be legalized too. On the firearms side, I also believe that it should be expanded to include grenades, rocket launchers, mines, etc.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Protection and tyrannical government justifications are extremely flimsy to me.

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The bolded excuse falls flat for me, because any country with reasonable constitutional rights to firearms would keep things limited to that which the government could counter without fail.

1 hour ago, Tetragrammaton said:

It was never mean for protection against tyrannical government, it's all about profit and money for the arm dealers.

Realistically, an individual or even a group of individuals is not going to do much with firearms against a government's military. But that is not really the point for me. The point of the right to bear arms is to give the people as a whole more willingness to exert their right to self determination and political freedom. Just because the American government right now is of the people, by the people, and for the people, it does not mean that it is guaranteed to remain so. My loyalty to my people and land is practically unconditional. My loyalty to my government on the other hand is conditional. I want the individual right to firearms more for its symbolic value than practical value. What topples a government is not guns or weapons, it is the people having enough will to end the government.

Rebelling and seceding is technically illegal, but I believe that we do have a duty to replace the government if it no longer represents us as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document so we cannot derive any laws from it, but I believe that the intent and spirit it embodies is just as important as the actual laws that the Constitution lays out. I cannot just rebel every time the Electoral College chooses a president I do not like, but I do believe that I have a duty to replace my government, with violence if need be, if the government no longer represents the people as a whole.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...