To be honest, I didn't read any of the previous posts.  I'm not going to waste my time.  I'm not going to sit here and read polarized opinions.  I'm going straight for the heart of the matter.  I'm going to be as offensive as fuck.  

I don't care.

I don't care if I hurt your precious "feels".  You're more than welcome to crawl back into your safe space, suck on your thumb, and cuddle up with your unicorn.

Don't think for one minute, one second, that I don't care about the families that have been ripped apart by another senseless act of gun violence.  I do.

Lets be honest here's how this will play out:

"Our thoughts and prayers"

Some asinine comment from the NRA, their bought politicians, and Fox Propaganda.

A week from now it will be forgotten.

Then you'll go back to pacifying yourselves with brainless television, and stuffing your faces with double quarter ton cheeseburgers from MacDonald's.  While you sit there and wait for the next one.

Then...

"Our thoughts and prayers"

Some asinine comment from the NRA, their bought politicians, and Fox Propaganda.

A week from now it will be forgotten.
Then you'll go back to pacifying yourselves with brainless television, and
stuffing your faces with double quarter ton cheeseburgers from
MacDonald's.  While you sit there and wait for the next one.

Then...

"Our thoughts and prayers"

Some asinine comment from the NRA, their bought politicians, and Fox Propaganda.

A week from now it will be forgotten.

Then you'll go back to pacifying yourselves with brainless television, and
stuffing your faces with double quarter ton cheeseburgers from
MacDonald's.  While you sit there and wait for the next one.

Rinse and repeat.

Have I pissed you off?  Good, you should be pissed. 

You should be enraged.  At the simple fact that your nation is so divided it can't come together long enough to admit that it has a problem. That you are going to scream racism. socialism, liberalism, communism, Hitler, Second Amendment, and "We need guns to defend ourselves"

That you are prepared to deny the truth.

 

Every single year you reenact the Battle of Antietam (by far your bloodiest day), on your streets.

 

That every two years more of your citizens are killed by guns, than your Armed Forces lost in the entirety of Vietnam.

 

Every single year, millions of man hours of production is lost.

 

Every single year, your out of control gun violence costs your economy (by conservative estimates), hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

Every single year (2017), over 42 000  of your fellow citizens are gunned down in cold blood.

 

Don't you feel their pain?  Don't you feel their loss?  That's your mother, your father, your son, your daughter, your nephew, your niece, your husband, your wife, your sister, your brother, your friend, who has been killed by some asshole with a gun.  Are their lives worth less than your right to carry a gun?

I never thought that I would see Americans so scared, so frighten, so cowardly that they wouldn't stand up and demand change.

Here's a nation that has given the world so much.  

Yet you can't stand for yourselves.

You are too terrified to enact change.

Never thought I'd see the day.

Edited February 18, 20188 yr by HackSlash

Arguments tend to lose effectiveness when you start to make personal attacks as people then focus on the attack and not on any of the logical points you may have made. If your goal is to vent then that's fine but if you hope to persuade or make change happen that's probably not the best way to go about it. Plus using stereotypes tends to lead people to discredit your argument as it shows a clear lack of understanding of the very target audience you hope to influence.

HAHA, and the feds get called out cause they are wasting time on Russia. Thats like complaining to the Park Rangers when a guy escapes from a state penitentiary.

 

Which ties in wonderfull with this:

 

 

Classic deflection tactic of the liberal left, and we see it playing out today. The Clintons, the Obama Administration, and the DNC, "colluded" with the Russians, and weaponized government agencies to influence an election... and then continued to do it in order to cover up their crimes, and undermine the authority, and the policies, of an elected President. In short... Whatever Democrats are accusing you of... it's a pretty good bet they are accusing you of what they themselves are guilty of. Sure does muck up the system.

 

 

The deflection that started all deflections...

 

 

You realize you haven't actually responded to a single thing i've said.

False. I have responded with the ultimate authority... you just don't want to hear it. Nothing can be done about the legal purchase and ownership of guns by law abiding US citizens. It's in the Constitution, and I told you why it's there. Congress can do nothing constitutionally to infringe on the right to bear arms. They must abolish the 2nd Amendment first before anything can be done, and there is no way the American people will go along with that. So all the crying about it, does nothing. It has nothing to do with race.

 

 

America saw such a massive fit of panic buying of firearms after Obama's election that you had a multi year long ammo shortage and this panic buying was driven by media whipped up hysteria

​False. Everybody knew Obama wanted to bring back the Clinton era ban on semi-automatic weapons, but this time he wanted it permanent. This caused an increase in buying those guns. We had an ammo shortage because Janet Napolitano used taxpayer money to purchase 1.6 billion rounds for Homeland Security in 2013 to drain the ammo supply from the population. Didn't work. It had nothing to do with race.

 

 

Otherwise if you dislike my position on the state of America's gun culture, my position on the cause of it, or any statement i've made around the influence firearm manufacturers have on the debate and discussion, do feel free to actually address any of those points. Or even contribute a point of your own.

It doesn't matter if I like your position or not. My contributing point is it doesn't matter how you feel about any of this. As long as the 2nd Amendment is included in our highest law of the land... nothing you feel means anything. It has nothing to do with race.

 

 

Everything you said...

I love your honesty about not reading any of this... We love our Canadian friends and your opinion is noted, but we got this.

I would also like to add that during the entire year of 2009, Obama had super majorities in both houses of Congress, could have done anything he wanted, Republicans could do nothing about it... did they do anything about guns? No, they didn't.

If your 2nd amendment is so holy, why aren't you guys sporting bazooka's?

 

 

I would also like to add that during the entire year of 2009, Obama had super majorities in both houses of Congress, could have done anything he wanted, Republicans could do nothing about it... did they do anything about guns? No, they didn't.

 

1) Republicans would have both whined about it until Christ himself came down to shut them up.

2) Republicans would have destroyed that at first instance possible

 

=> as such, a common ground solutions > reckless back-and-forth legislations that do nothing.

 

You realize you haven't actually responded to a single thing i've said.

False. I have responded with the ultimate authority... you just don't want to hear it. Nothing can be done about the legal purchase and ownership of guns by law abiding US citizens. It's in the Constitution, and I told you why it's there. Congress can do nothing constitutionally to infringe on the right to bear arms. They must abolish the 2nd Amendment first before anything can be done, and there is no way the American people will go along with that. So all the crying about it, does nothing. It has nothing to do with race.

 

 

America saw such a massive fit of panic buying of firearms after Obama's election that you had a multi year long ammo shortage and this panic buying was driven by media whipped up hysteria

​False. Everybody knew Obama wanted to bring back the Clinton era ban on semi-automatic weapons, but this time he wanted it permanent. This caused an increase in buying those guns. We had an ammo shortage because Janet Napolitano used taxpayer money to purchase 1.6 billion rounds for Homeland Security in 2013 to drain the ammo supply from the population. Didn't work. It had nothing to do with race.

 

 

Otherwise if you dislike my position on the state of America's gun culture, my position on the cause of it, or any statement i've made around the influence firearm manufacturers have on the debate and discussion, do feel free to actually address any of those points. Or even contribute a point of your own.

It doesn't matter if I like your position or not. My contributing point is it doesn't matter how you feel about any of this. As long as the 2nd Amendment is included in our highest law of the land... nothing you feel means anything. It has nothing to do with race.

 

 

 

 

There's the Schrodinger's Obama: Simultaneously doing a thing, but also not doing the thing. Lovely. Not  that Obama has anything to do with the topic at hand beyond one off hand example used to illustrate my point. So you know, moving on. 

 

On the subject of such  illustrations however, thank you for continuing to be a living demonstration of my point re: a minority of Americans holding the second amendment as somehow more absolute than any other right held by American citizens. You are literally repeating the gun lobbies nonsense wholesale. You're also fundamentally wrong. If you take the Heller decision as the ground (which is it's own issue, but whatever)...well even Scalia agreed: 

 

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms 

 

The second amendment prevents the US government from banning the sale or possession of arms, absent some significant compelling interest (ie, why you can't go out and buy a howitzer willy nilly). It does not prevent either the federal government, or the states from regulating the sale and ownership. 

 

And even then all of this remains off topic. The second amendment has little to do with the political and social influence of the gun lobby, the literally millions of dollars they've poured into lobbying  groups and PR firms in order to maintain their bottom line or pretty much any other point anyone here has brought up. 

If your 2nd amendment is so holy, why aren't you guys sporting bazooka's?

 

 I should point out that most US States allow the civilian transfer and possession of Destructive Devices (DD), as they fall under the NFA laws. Why don't you see them outside of private collections? Mostly has to do with cost. Not only are you required to pay a $200 tax stamp to register that Destructive Device (lets say its a Bazooka from WW2), but each 'round' of explosive ammunition must also be registered and you have to pay a $200 tax stamp on each individual 'round'. So if you want to buy 5 Bazooka rockets, not only do you have to pay the high upfront cost of the rockets, but you are shelling out an additional $1,000 in tax stamps. The way around that high cost would be if you wanted inert rounds with no explosive warheads. Yugoslavian SKS rifles are sold in the US with the rifle grenade attachment, and you can buy foam/plastic grenades to launch. Those inert rifle grenades don't require a $200 tax stamp as the possess no explosive properties.

And even then all of this remains off topic. The second amendment has little to do with the political and social influence of the gun lobby, the literally millions of dollars they've poured into lobbying groups and PR firms in order to maintain their bottom line or pretty much any other point anyone here has brought up.

Good... I'm glad I'm getting somewhere. So it appears your real problem is with campaign finance. You don't like that an organization has been created to protect the 2nd Amendment. The NRA is this organization. Do you actually believe that the NRA gives money to a candidate, and that candidate changes his, or her, view on gun control? That's absurd. The NRA will support a candidate that already shares their view on the 2nd Amendment... and I will remind you that it's a Constitutional right they are protecting.

 

I wager you have no problem with Fahr LLC, Paloma Partners, Service Employees International Union, Newsweb Corp, NextGen Climate Action, American Federation of Teachers, Priorities USA, National Education Association, Laborers Union, Soros Fund Management, Carpenters and Joiners Union, Bloomberg LP, Pritzker Group, For Our Future, AFL-CIO, Asana, Saban Capitol Group, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Comcast Corp, Environment America, Operating Engineers Union, Plumbers/Pipefitters Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, League of Conservation Voters, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the entire Hollywood/Television/Entertainment Mega-group... just to scratch the surface... and they all push for things that are not in the Constitution. Go figure.

 

                                                                             

I wager you have no problem with Fahr LLC, Paloma Partners, Service Employees International Union, Newsweb Corp, NextGen Climate Action, American Federation of Teachers, Priorities USA, National Education Association, Laborers Union, Soros Fund Management, Carpenters and Joiners Union, Bloomberg LP, Pritzker Group, For Our Future, AFL-CIO, Asana, Saban Capitol Group, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Comcast Corp, Environment America, Operating Engineers Union, Plumbers/Pipefitters Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, League of Conservation Voters, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the entire Hollywood/Television/Entertainment Mega-group... just to scratch the surface... and they all push for things that are not in the Constitution. Go figure.

 

I think the same exact thing anytime someone blames the NRA for being a massive financial entity, then proceeds to complain about their donations controlling Congress.

 

I will let everyone in on a secret. The NRA, really doesn't have that much money. It just appears to have a massive amount due to media hype. Traditionally speaking, whatever the NRA spends trying to get a candidate elected, it is often a paltry sum to what the Liberal groups/donors give to their candidate.

We all hate the lobbyists on the other side... but what the left is trying to do to the NRA is deny them the 1st Amendment Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Batting a thousand here... in order to stomp on their 2nd Amendment rights... we have to stomp on their 1st Amendment rights. I think they hate the USA a little bit, or at least they hate what the USA is.

I don't believe the shooting has anything to do with "gun culture". The killer would kill regardless. Whether he had access to a gun,

Knives - (DailyMail's Knife Statistics - Britain / Source - Annual Crime Survey - does not include crimes by minors), Canada's Violence Statistics (Knifes #1 weapon used, guns second with 37% v 30% respectively.)

Bombs - UK Terrorist Backtrack for 2017 (Please see most are bombs or explosive materials) 

We can even look at the past few years for solely the US (to include shootings, bombings, knife/sword attacks, vehicle attacks.) - color coated for type of incident too
Feb. 18th, 2010 - Dude flies a plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas. 2 Dead (1 IRS employee and himself), 13 injured.
May 1st, 2010 - Dude tries to ingite a bomb in Times Square, thankfully bomb fails to go off
October 29th, 2010 -  Cargo planes  discovered with plastic explosive bombs, destined for two synagogues in Chicago. Thankfully, discovered beforehand.
August 5th, 2012 - Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin came under shooting from domestic terrorist. Seven dead (six + the shooter), 4 injured
Feb. 3rd - 12th - Christoper Dorner killing spree and manhunt in Southern California 5 Dead (4 + Christoper Dorner), 6 inured, mainly police officers and their families
April 15th, 2012 - Boston Bombing (please note the shootout related to this event was in regards to the police and the bombers) - 6 dead ( 5 + 1 bomber), 281 injured (280 + 1 bomber)
October 24th, 2014 - New York City Hatchet attack - 3 police injured, attacker dead
June 15th, 2017 - Charleston Church Shooting - 9 dead, 1 injured
December 2nd, 2015 - San Bernarindo Shooting, 16 dead ( 14 + 2 attackers), 24 injured
June 12th, 2016 - Orlando NightCLub shooting, 50 dead (49+1 attacker), 53 injured
September 17th-19th - New York/New Jersey Bombings, 35 injured (34 + 1 bomber)
November 28th, 2016 - Ohio State Stabbing, Vehicle Runthrough, 1 attacker dead, 13 injured
August 12th, 2017 - Charlottesville protest - Protest by antifa and white supremesicts led to one driving a charger through the crowd, 1 dead, 19 injured
October 1st, 2017 - Las Vegas Sniper - 59 killed, 529 injured
October 31, 2017 - New York Truck Attack - Dude drives rented truck through crowd, 8 dead, 12 injured (11 + 1 attacker)


As this says, there are multiple ways people will commit violence. When guns are taken away, or inaccessible, they will find other alternatives. Sick minds will do what sick minds want to do. We can make it harder, yes, but blaming the majority of gun owners ( or knife collectors, or car enthusiasts) because of the actions of a few is non-sense. 

Here are the deadliest attacks in US history
9/11 Twin Towers - 2759 dead, ~8700 injured
9/11 Pentagon - 189 dead, ~200 injured
9/11 Flight - ~45 dead

October 31st, 1999 - Intentional crash of Egyptian Air, 217 dead
20 April, 1999 - Columbine (not one of the deadliest in history, but impactful so included) - 15 dead, 27 injured
17 Jul, 1999 - Mid-air explosion of TWA 800 - 230 dead
19th April, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing - 169 dead, 675 injured
27th April - 2nd May, 1993 - LA Riots - multiple incidents shootings, stabbings, bare-hand beatings, vehicles running people over - 58 dead, ~4,000 injured
25 Mar, 1990 - Arson in New York Social Club - 87 dead


As we can see, most of the deadliest attacks happened from Planes and bombings. Are we still allowing to buy Bleach/Ammonia (mustard gas), alcohol, a rag, and a lighter (molotav), or fertilizer with ammonium nitrate and fuel? Security on planes might have been stricter, but as I stated earlier, it doesn't neglect people from doing evil, just changes their tactics. (Increase in shootings and bombings). Could we use some sort of further evaluation of guns? Yes. I has ALWAYS believed no one who knows how to use a gun responsively should buy one. A target course to ensure someone can aim properly, a written test over basic gun knowledge (no booger hook on the trigger unless you plan to shoot, etc). However, I also believe in using guns as a deterrent. 

Take the recent shooting in FL. The JROTC kids used kevlar mats to block a doorway. The reality? A 5.56 would pierce those mats like paper. However, the classroom became a HARD target. A shooter without that knowledge is not going to waste limited ammo on a doorway blocked by Kelvar when soft targets exist. Where I live in Texas, we have dozens of schools with armed teachers. They've been armed for years. I've done work on several. The security is intense. (No parking outside the parking lot, no running cars around the entrances or within X amount of the school, the armed teachers are trained and the students never know who has the gun (concealed)). I can also say, I've never seen a shooting at any of these schools. People choose soft targets, not hard targets. You don't see terrorist trying to drive an explosive truck through the white house gate. You don't see people trying to shoot up a gun convention.

Taking away guns won't accomplish anything. Beyond that, taking away "Scary" guns won't either. Like I stated, a 5.56 will pierce those kelvar mats. You don't need an AR-15 to fire a 5.56 or larger round. That's just my take on this whole thing. 

I feel sad for the families involved. I've watched videos of the news, and even the snapchats of the kids during the chaos (guys in my military group chat share it alot). One thing we did discuss that broke my heart is these are kids. A few guys kept stating what they would do, or how they would react. The reality we need to realize is these are high school kids. They aren't trained. They aren't accustomed to hearing gun fire. They don't and shouldn't have to live with the idea of "I might be attacked today", whether by guns, bombings, or knives. It really is heartbreaking.

 

^ Seeing the incidents color coded was nice. Thank you for listing it all out in an easy to understand format.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/day-prior-parkland-grandmother-foiled-grandson-s-alleged-school-shooting-n848426

 

 

Even if all firearms are removed it won't matter if people still want to kill people they are going to do it. The only difference is they aren't going to be as effective at it.

 

I believe the point RH is trying to make, correct me if I'm mistaken, is that behavior is a visible response to stimuli and that response is shaped by our culture. Looking at statistics there is an increase in "mass" shootings over the years. Now while correlation doesn't imply causation in this case "it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'".(XKCD)

Sure to some extent crazies are going to be crazy but the point trying to be made is at what point are these just "mentally ill people" and what point are they "born and bred" to think like this.

Mass shootings are not on the rise per say, they are just getting more deadly. The frequency is about the same as it was in the 80s and 90s. 

 

 

If your 2nd amendment is so holy, why aren't you guys sporting bazooka's?

 

 I should point out that most US States allow the civilian transfer and possession of Destructive Devices (DD), as they fall under the NFA laws. Why don't you see them outside of private collections? Mostly has to do with cost. Not only are you required to pay a $200 tax stamp to register that Destructive Device (lets say its a Bazooka from WW2), but each 'round' of explosive ammunition must also be registered and you have to pay a $200 tax stamp on each individual 'round'. So if you want to buy 5 Bazooka rockets, not only do you have to pay the high upfront cost of the rockets, but you are shelling out an additional $1,000 in tax stamps. The way around that high cost would be if you wanted inert rounds with no explosive warheads. Yugoslavian SKS rifles are sold in the US with the rifle grenade attachment, and you can buy foam/plastic grenades to launch. Those inert rifle grenades don't require a $200 tax stamp as the possess no explosive properties.

This^

Many weapons that people seem to think are illegal are not illegal. Just very expensive. 

 

To add to all of this, assault weapons are a tiny fraction of American murders. The favorite murder weapon in the US is by far a handgun. Drug and gang related crime kills far more people than the occasional mass shooter. But nobody cares about them black ghetto kids. We only talk about this whenever some white kids get shot. Taste the rainbow...

I don't believe the shooting has anything to do with "gun culture". The killer would kill regardless. Whether he had access to a gun,

As we can see, most of the deadliest attacks happened from Planes and bombings. Are we still allowing to buy Bleach/Ammonia (mustard gas), alcohol, a rag, and a lighter (molotav), or fertilizer with ammonium nitrate and fuel? Security on planes might have been stricter, but as I stated earlier, it doesn't neglect people from doing evil, just changes their tactics. (Increase in shootings and bombings). Could we use some sort of further evaluation of guns? Yes. I has ALWAYS believed no one who knows how to use a gun responsively should buy one. A target course to ensure someone can aim properly, a written test over basic gun knowledge (no booger hook on the trigger unless you plan to shoot, etc). However, I also believe in using guns as a deterrent. 

 

Take the recent shooting in FL. The JROTC kids used kevlar mats to block a doorway. The reality? A 5.56 would pierce those mats like paper. However, the classroom became a HARD target. A shooter without that knowledge is not going to waste limited ammo on a doorway blocked by Kelvar when soft targets exist. Where I live in Texas, we have dozens of schools with armed teachers. They've been armed for years. I've done work on several. The security is intense. (No parking outside the parking lot, no running cars around the entrances or within X amount of the school, the armed teachers are trained and the students never know who has the gun (concealed)). I can also say, I've never seen a shooting at any of these schools. People choose soft targets, not hard targets. You don't see terrorist trying to drive an explosive truck through the white house gate. You don't see people trying to shoot up a gun convention.

 

Taking away guns won't accomplish anything. Beyond that, taking away "Scary" guns won't either. Like I stated, a 5.56 will pierce those kelvar mats. You don't need an AR-15 to fire a 5.56 or larger round. That's just my take on this whole thing. 

 

I feel sad for the families involved. I've watched videos of the news, and even the snapchats of the kids during the chaos (guys in my military group chat share it alot). One thing we did discuss that broke my heart is these are kids. A few guys kept stating what they would do, or how they would react. The reality we need to realize is these are high school kids. They aren't trained. They aren't accustomed to hearing gun fire. They don't and shouldn't have to live with the idea of "I might be attacked today", whether by guns, bombings, or knives. It really is heartbreaking.

 

 

 

 

5% of the world's population, 33% of the mass shootings. And if you aim for any sort of "mass killing" and then exclude acts of organized terrorism, things tilt even worse for the USA. the US is literally the only country in the world in which attacks like this happen on a regular basis.  There were more incidents of mass shootings in the USA in 2017  alone than Europe has seen with any sort of weapon in the last decade. You're also equating all acts of violence as comparable, which they're manifestly not. Treating a group of murderous bastards flying planes into the trade center as part of a religiously motivated terrorist organization that arose out of socio-political factors half the world away dating back to the cold war and this asshole kid shooting up his former school....not the same. They're just not. Treating them as equlviant makes as much sense as saying "Millions of people died last year from non trafic accident causes so we don't need to work to improve trafic safety because people die anyways." 

 

 

When you see people call out shit like the AR-15, it's not because ooooh scary gun kills more people but because it's marketed like this. That shit is bascily why it's on the restricted list in canada, it's not marketed as a hunting rifle, or something for target shooting, or hell even something for home defense. Instead it's....frankly i'm not even fucking sure what Bushmaster was going for there. You want a rifle that does bascily  the same thing, you can find similar ones, all easily acquirable. And if you really really want an AR-15, you can still get one. A few of the rest on the restricted list are ones that bascily have no real purpose from a civil PoV; rifle and shotguns meant to be easily concealable for example. 

 

The model couldn't be wholesale ported over to america, but the net effect and the goal would be useful. It helps towards having guns being treated as tools (and dangerous ones)  not toys, allows for people who are dumbfucks who shouldn't be trusted with a nerf gun to lose their access, and generally promotes culture of a greater responsibility. And similar models exist around the world. This isn't an untested hypothetical, this isn't some serious experiment, it works around the world. Canada has as many, possibly more gun owners than the USA as a percentage of the population, it has a lot of cross cultural pollination with the USA, shares many of the same ideals and yet doesn't have this problem. It's not a coincidence. 

 

 

 

 can also say, I've never seen a shooting at any of these schools. People choose soft targets, not hard targets.

 

I've a walrus repelling rock for sale. Guaranteed you won't be attacked by a walrus  while you're holding it. 

 

All that security is reactive, if someone walks in with a rifle the best it can do is limit the issue, not prevent it. Unless you get very very lucky, an armed teacher can respond after the first shot is fired. Which you know, if you consider 15-20 kids getting shot instead of 30+ a good deal, may be worth it...but that's a pretty shit metric for a solution. 

 

For that matter, even if it did work what's gonna stop someone doing it before class whenever someone's outside. Or doing it at a movie theater with a field trip.  Or shooting up the local library where the kids go to study. Or the community center. or the....

 

Unless you want to turn every single location where people gather in more than small numbers into a small military base, the approach fails. All you'll do it redirect targets, not prevent it.  

 

 

 

 

I wager you have no problem with Fahr LLC, Paloma Partners, Service Employees International Union, Newsweb Corp, NextGen Climate Action, American Federation of Teachers, Priorities USA, National Education Association, Laborers Union, Soros Fund Management, Carpenters and Joiners Union, Bloomberg LP, Pritzker Group, For Our Future, AFL-CIO, Asana, Saban Capitol Group, American Federation of State/County/Municipal Employees, Comcast Corp, Environment America, Operating Engineers Union, Plumbers/Pipefitters Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, League of Conservation Voters, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the entire Hollywood/Television/Entertainment Mega-group... just to scratch the surface... and they all push for things that are not in the Constitution. Go figure.

 

I think the same exact thing anytime someone blames the NRA for being a massive financial entity, then proceeds to complain about their donations controlling Congress.

 

I will let everyone in on a secret. The NRA, really doesn't have that much money. It just appears to have a massive amount due to media hype. Traditionally speaking, whatever the NRA spends trying to get a candidate elected, it is often a paltry sum to what the Liberal groups/donors give to their candidate.

 

 

 

Fortunately it takes very little money to buy a politician in the USA. Seriously, a couple thousand bucks in campaign contributions and the promise of some more or an "official endorsement" in the future can be enough to get support. It's kinda pathetic.    The why of that is a whole other issue however. 

 

As well, net spending is not the net effect on how law gets shaped. We've seen this over and over again. To use a settled example rather than a current one: Look into the history of leaded gasoline getting banned. The issue had been well recognized since the 1960s, and had the first mandate to reduce it put in place by nixon in the 70s, but by lobbying a relative handful of the right candidates the oil companies managed to delay a full ban till freaking 1995. It's not about spraying money everywhere, you threaten jobs in a few states with influential  party members, agree to help promote candidates in a few key states next election, withdraw support from a rival to to, maybe give somebody's kid a job and generally some basic horse trading and 50 fucking years of gradual phase out of freaking leaded gasoline in order to protect profits. 

 

Secondarily: while most lobbying and campaign finance in the USA is just legalized bribery, you can very much pick and choose who to criticize more and why. Pharmaceutical companies and the ACLU both spend money on political causes and lobbying. However right now the pharmaceutical companies are spending their money to bury their role in the opioid crisis, while the ACLU continues to deal with it's agenda of citizen rights issues.The whole system is filthy, but *one of these things is not like the other*

 

The NRA is one of the greatest cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers, and everything about it's current actions and tactics is literally borrowed wholesale from the tobacco industry. They're also just *one* corporate controlled political organ. Groups like ALEC and the influence they give corporations on drafting legislation are rather more concerning. 

 

 

All you'll do it redirect targets, not prevent it.  

 

My point. Right here. Spelt out.

You CAN"T stop it, but you can redirect it or limit it. That's the goal. If you believe ridding a country of guns reduces violence, it doesn't. It REDIRECTS the weaponry of choice, or redirects how one goes about it. As far as the walrus statement, if you truly believe a hard target has just the same odds as getting hit as a soft target, it is delusional. The problems with organized terrorism and your run-of-the-mill domestic terrorist equal the same ideology, but with different means to obtain it. Organized terrorism can produce larger weaponry (usually illegal), but your domestic terrorist will just change routes. Like stated, banning guns won't stop an anger, mentally ill person from making a shit ton of molotavs and just tossing them at people. It wouldn't stop someone from driving a truck full of explosives into a building. It wouldn't stop someone from obtaining a knife. Running a parade over with your car/truck. It does not stop evil actions. Equating domestic terrorist to organized terrorist does equate to they will always find a way to do damage. Banning guns won't solve anything.

 

All that security is reactive, if someone walks in with a rifle the best it can do is limit the issue, not prevent it. Unless you get very very lucky, an armed teacher can respond after the first shot is fired. Which you know, if you consider 15-20 kids getting shot instead of 30+ a good deal, may be worth it...but that's a pretty shit metric for a solution.   

This is why guns are needed. Exactly what you stated. An armed teacher can only respond after the first shot is fired. How much longer would someone wait for a police officer? An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting. Teachers can provide that initial backup since, at least around here, they are provided the immediate response training necessary. A long, buckled down gun fight? Probably not, but that gives time for SWAT and police to respond. A quick response is better than a prolonged one. If you were at the mall, and someone set the mall on fire. Nothing could stop the initial fire from happening, because someone in love with arson wants to start a fire. Does that mean you wait for the fire department to arrive, or does the mall have sprinklers to try and tackle the fire initially? Fire extinguishers to tackle it initially? You can't put out a fire that isn't there yet, but you can change how you react. Faster reaction = better. If that is a shit metric to follow in a world where violence won't ever go away, I'll take my shit metric every time.

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game. The irrational fear of it being the most dangerous weaponry available is unrealistic. It does, however, provide therapy. Myself included. Going to the range and having to calm down, take the time to watch your breathe, make far off shots, that is relaxing. Customizing a gun that is just yours is relaxing. It feels accomplished and prideful to look at something you made. This is that culture you speak of. It isn't a culture of fantasting about a gun to go out and shoot people. Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The "man-card" idea is the same as cars. Guys love cars. We argue over brands and models. Ford vs Chevy, Camaro vs Mustang, etc, etc. We argue over Colt vs Sig. 1911 vs any other handgun. M4 vs M16. It's not a culture designed to be violent. It is a culture designed for our interests and hobbies.  My girlfriend's brother and my girlfriend have been trying to get me and a few buddies into air soft. Haven't tried it yet. Interested to see how therapeutic that can be. I just bought a rifle the other day, though apparently I need a mask and stuff. lol.

 

The NRA is one of the greatest fucking cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers

 

 

That is why I let my NRA membership expire years ago. Sadly, its mostly become all about marketing, building up hype, and getting donations. Seeing the NRA cave on certain issues, or hear them talk about doing something in a specific state and then doing absolutely nothing, really convinced me it was time to move on.

 

Come to think of it, I don't really get why the NRA gets so much hate from Liberals. Because if you take a look at history, thanks to NRA support in one way or another, we have:

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NRA was all for this)

1968 Gun Control Act (NRA endorsed it in exchange for some provisions)

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (The NRA helped write the Bill)

2017 NRA requested the ATF reevaluate the bumpstock ruling

 

Those are all things on the Federal level, get down to the State level and it becomes even more apparent the NRA doesn't do much to enforce individual rights, except when it can be used as positive outcomes for the NRA.

 

To an extent I still feel the NRA does some good. The Eddie Eagle Program, offering training to those who want to learn safe shooting fundamentals, and helping to preserve historic/museum grade firearms. But apart from that I don't have much love for the NRA.

 

I've found GOA (Gun Owners of America), to be one of the few firearm organizations that actually seems to care about the right's of the individual. I do like their attitude of "Not one inch." No caving, no carve outs, no sell outs. All of which the NRA has been guilty of many times.

My girlfriend's brother and my girlfriend have been trying to get me and a few buddies into air soft.

OH DUDE! I just checked out some youtube videos of airsoft, and you so have to do this. I played paintball war games for about 5 years in the late 80's and early 90's. We had hundreds of players, and we wrecked the savage jungles of Orange County California. It was the most insane physical challenge ever... but hands down the best game I ever played, entirely way too much fun. I couldn't possibly do it now... ageing sucks, but this airsoft looks so much sleeker, much more accurate, but just as exhilarating. I wish I could turn back a bit, and join you!

I can attest to Airsoft being incredibly fun. Whether you play random games, use it for training, or attend large scale MILSIM events modeled after real world combat, it will be very enjoyable.

 

I used to play Airsoft from 2007-2011, and it was some of the best moments of my life. I met some awesome people and I have some great stories to tell.

If we make guns illegal, then nobody will get shot anymore.

That's how we stopped everybody from doing drugs.

 

All you'll do it redirect targets, not prevent it.  

 

 

My point. Right here. Spelt out.

 

You CAN"T stop it, but you can redirect it or limit it. That's the goal. If you believe ridding a country of guns reduces violence, it doesn't. It REDIRECTS the weaponry of choice, or redirects how one goes about it. As far as the walrus statement, if you truly believe a hard target has just the same odds as getting hit as a soft target, it is delusional. The problems with organized terrorism and your run-of-the-mill domestic terrorist equal the same ideology, but with different means to obtain it. Organized terrorism can produce larger weaponry (usually illegal), but your domestic terrorist will just change routes. Like stated, banning guns won't stop an anger, mentally ill person from making a shit ton of molotavs and just tossing them at people. It wouldn't stop someone from driving a truck full of explosives into a building. It wouldn't stop someone from obtaining a knife. Running a parade over with your car/truck. It does not stop evil actions. Equating domestic terrorist to organized terrorist does equate to they will always find a way to do damage. Banning guns won't solve anything.

 

 

All that security is reactive, if someone walks in with a rifle the best it can do is limit the issue, not prevent it. Unless you get very very lucky, an armed teacher can respond after the first shot is fired. Which you know, if you consider 15-20 kids getting shot instead of 30+ a good deal, may be worth it...but that's a pretty shit metric for a solution.   

 

This is why guns are needed. Exactly what you stated. An armed teacher can only respond after the first shot is fired. How much longer would someone wait for a police officer? An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting. Teachers can provide that initial backup since, at least around here, they are provided the immediate response training necessary. A long, buckled down gun fight? Probably not, but that gives time for SWAT and police to respond. A quick response is better than a prolonged one. If you were at the mall, and someone set the mall on fire. Nothing could stop the initial fire from happening, because someone in love with arson wants to start a fire. Does that mean you wait for the fire department to arrive, or does the mall have sprinklers to try and tackle the fire initially? Fire extinguishers to tackle it initially? You can't put out a fire that isn't there yet, but you can change how you react. Faster reaction = better. If that is a shit metric to follow in a world where violence won't ever go away, I'll take my shit metric every time.

 

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game. The irrational fear of it being the most dangerous weaponry available is unrealistic. It does, however, provide therapy. Myself included. Going to the range and having to calm down, take the time to watch your breathe, make far off shots, that is relaxing. Customizing a gun that is just yours is relaxing. It feels accomplished and prideful to look at something you made. This is that culture you speak of. It isn't a culture of fantasting about a gun to go out and shoot people. Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The "man-card" idea is the same as cars. Guys love cars. We argue over brands and models. Ford vs Chevy, Camaro vs Mustang, etc, etc. We argue over Colt vs Sig. 1911 vs any other handgun. M4 vs M16. It's not a culture designed to be violent. It is a culture designed for our interests and hobbies.  My girlfriend's brother and my girlfriend have been trying to get me and a few buddies into air soft. Haven't tried it yet. Interested to see how therapeutic that can be. I just bought a rifle the other day, though apparently I need a mask and stuff. lol.

 

 

Most of what you've said either simultaneously fails the reality check, or is irrelevant to anything said in the thread. 

 

Despite having half the population the USA has seen more mass shootings this year (an i do mean since january) than europe has seen in the last 5. If you exclude what usually gets labeled as "terrorist attacks" in that they have some political motivation, from both the lists: The last major mass killing in europe was in 2013. The last one in the USA before this one...was January. The last one before that was november 2017. The last one before that was also november. The last one before that was october. On and on.

or in short: "There is nothing that can be done to prevent this says only nation in the world where this happens on a regular basis" 

 

 

 

 

 

This is that culture you speak of. It isn't a culture of fantasting about a gun to go out and shoot people. Anyone with that mentality shouldn't have a gun to begin with. The "man-card" idea is the same as cars. Guys love cars. We argue over brands and models. 

 

 

 If you fail to make a distinction between a  sports car and a weapon then I'm not even sure where to start. A gun if first and always a device designed to kill.  It is not a toy. it is sure as shit not a surrogate dick by which someone can feel secure in their manhood. That sort of attitude frankly vile and disturbing and it's one that permeates much of american gun culture. 

 

 

 

 Arming teachers is pure theater. It won't prevent this, it doesn't address the problem, and demands teachers take risks with their own lives and the lives of their students in an attempt to "stop" the attack. it's idiotic. You know why teachers being armed isn't a thing? Every time the proposal comes up, teachers, the teachers unions, parents, the educational board and bascily everyone involved goes "this is a bad idea" and then it dies. 

 

And again, *this doesn't happen anywhere else*   the "solution" elsewhere hasn't been "draft teachers to do the job of an armed response team." 

 

The problem isn't guns, the problem isn't even mass shootings, the problem is America. 

 

 

 

 

An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting

Screw that! They are the only other person with a gun. They should be running towards the gun fire, not hiding behind their desks waiting for backup. Otherwise, why the fuck are they even there to begin with?

 

 

 

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game.

I beg to differ. I mean it's not going to stop something too big, but I've brought down deer with my .223. Aside from that, AR-15s come in numerous different rounds. Though I would never use one for hunting just because semi-auto and large mag seems like unfair overkill for most hunting. 

 

 

 

 

The NRA is one of the greatest fucking cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers

 

 

That is why I let my NRA membership expire years ago. Sadly, its mostly become all about marketing, building up hype, and getting donations. Seeing the NRA cave on certain issues, or hear them talk about doing something in a specific state and then doing absolutely nothing, really convinced me it was time to move on.

 

Come to think of it, I don't really get why the NRA gets so much hate from Liberals. Because if you take a look at history, thanks to NRA support in one way or another, we have:

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NRA was all for this)

1968 Gun Control Act (NRA endorsed it in exchange for some provisions)

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (The NRA helped write the Bill)

2017 NRA requested the ATF reevaluate the bumpstock ruling

 

Those are all things on the Federal level, get down to the State level and it becomes even more apparent the NRA doesn't do much to enforce individual rights, except when it can be used as positive outcomes for the NRA.

 

To an extent I still feel the NRA does some good. The Eddie Eagle Program, offering training to those who want to learn safe shooting fundamentals, and helping to preserve historic/museum grade firearms. But apart from that I don't have much love for the NRA.

 

I've found GOA (Gun Owners of America), to be one of the few firearm organizations that actually seems to care about the right's of the individual. I do like their attitude of "Not one inch." No caving, no carve outs, no sell outs. All of which the NRA has been guilty of many times.

 

I've never been an NRA member and never found them appealing. It is ironic how they are so hated by liberals despite their lobbying for gun control. The whole bump stock debate in particular was interesting to watch people ignore the NRAs opinion on. 

 

 

 

Most of what you've said either simultaneously fails the reality check, or is irrelevant to anything said in the thread.    Despite having half the population the USA has seen more mass shootings this year (an i do mean since january) than europe has seen in the last 5. If you exclude what usually gets labeled as "terrorist attacks" in that they have some political motivation, from both the lists: The last major mass killing in europe was in 2013. The last one in the USA before this one...was January. The last one before that was november 2017. The last one before that was also november. The last one before that was october. On and on. or in short: "There is nothing that can be done to prevent this says only nation in the world where this happens on a regular basis" 

We already know from statistics that stricter gun regulations and bans do not reduce gun violence. The fact that areas with the highest gun control have the highest rates of gun violence is quite evident. And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

 

If you fail to make a distinction between a  sports car and a weapon then I'm not even sure where to start. A gun if first and always a device designed to kill.  It is not a toy.

No it is not. That doesn't mean it can't be used for entertainment. 

 

 

 

And again, *this doesn't happen anywhere else*

Oh for sure! This doesn't happen anywhere else! Stop gobbling up and regurgitating the medias lies. Europe is comparatively just as bad if not worse. 

And we devolved into people thinking "gun control" is "no guns".

 

 

swell...

 

 

 

And as for the bazooka's, while some throw alot of cash towards guns, if $$ can keep people away from using them, lets add some taxes

 

An SRO at the school might have to wait for backup before reacting

Screw that! They are the only other person with a gun. They should be running towards the gun fire, not hiding behind their desks waiting for backup. Otherwise, why the fuck are they even there to begin with?

 

 

 

The reason why an AR-15 isn't traditional used as a hunting rifle is because it DOESN'T have the stopping power needed for bigger game.

I beg to differ. I mean it's not going to stop something too big, but I've brought down deer with my .223. Aside from that, AR-15s come in numerous different rounds. Though I would never use one for hunting just because semi-auto and large mag seems like unfair overkill for most hunting. 

 

 

 

 

The NRA is one of the greatest fucking cons in the US however. They don't support individual rights, and they don't represent gun owners. They're a marketing and lobbying tool for gun manufacturers

 

 

That is why I let my NRA membership expire years ago. Sadly, its mostly become all about marketing, building up hype, and getting donations. Seeing the NRA cave on certain issues, or hear them talk about doing something in a specific state and then doing absolutely nothing, really convinced me it was time to move on.

 

Come to think of it, I don't really get why the NRA gets so much hate from Liberals. Because if you take a look at history, thanks to NRA support in one way or another, we have:

 

1934 National Firearms Act (NRA was all for this)

1968 Gun Control Act (NRA endorsed it in exchange for some provisions)

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act (The NRA helped write the Bill)

2017 NRA requested the ATF reevaluate the bumpstock ruling

 

Those are all things on the Federal level, get down to the State level and it becomes even more apparent the NRA doesn't do much to enforce individual rights, except when it can be used as positive outcomes for the NRA.

 

To an extent I still feel the NRA does some good. The Eddie Eagle Program, offering training to those who want to learn safe shooting fundamentals, and helping to preserve historic/museum grade firearms. But apart from that I don't have much love for the NRA.

 

I've found GOA (Gun Owners of America), to be one of the few firearm organizations that actually seems to care about the right's of the individual. I do like their attitude of "Not one inch." No caving, no carve outs, no sell outs. All of which the NRA has been guilty of many times.

 

I've never been an NRA member and never found them appealing. It is ironic how they are so hated by liberals despite their lobbying for gun control. The whole bump stock debate in particular was interesting to watch people ignore the NRAs opinion on. 

 

 

 

Most of what you've said either simultaneously fails the reality check, or is irrelevant to anything said in the thread.    Despite having half the population the USA has seen more mass shootings this year (an i do mean since january) than europe has seen in the last 5. If you exclude what usually gets labeled as "terrorist attacks" in that they have some political motivation, from both the lists: The last major mass killing in europe was in 2013. The last one in the USA before this one...was January. The last one before that was november 2017. The last one before that was also november. The last one before that was october. On and on. or in short: "There is nothing that can be done to prevent this says only nation in the world where this happens on a regular basis" 

We already know from statistics that stricter gun regulations and bans do not reduce gun violence. The fact that areas with the highest gun control have the highest rates of gun violence is quite evident. And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

Oh for sure! This doesn't happen anywhere else! Stop gobbling up and regurgitating the medias lies. Europe is comparatively just as bad if not worse. 

 

 

 

I'ma keep this really short: The CPRC is yet another gun industry lobbying tool. It literally has the tagline "More guns"

 

Frankly I can't even begin to describe how fundamentally flawed there. It equates general homicides, terrorists acts, cherry picks data across europe over 3, proceeds to then role in information from outside of europe, often dating to periods of political instability, jerks off about casualties, and and is littrealying lying in a few cases because no there were way more than 29  mass shootings in the USA between 

 

Even if you take that statistic, Europe has over twice the US's population. So yay 25 mass shootings (many of which were political/religious terrorism related and aren't comparable phenomena) compared to 29 in the USA. But massive population disparity between the two.

 

 

Also your just...

 

We already know from statistics that stricter gun regulations and bans do not reduce gun violence. The fact that areas with the highest gun control have the highest rates of gun violence is quite evident. And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

What the hell even is this? Any statistic that claims to measure if banning guns reduce gun violence is lying through its teeth. No such data exists. *no one bans guns*. Wana go to canada? You can have a gun. Wanna go to france? You can have a  gun. Wanna go to switzerland? If you're talking to someone over 18, they probably can shoot better than the average american. Wana head anywhere in eastern europe? The rate of gun ownership out there is often higher than in the USA. 

 

 

And why are you so obsessed with mass shootings? Again, that is an almost irrelevant fraction of American gun violence. 

 

 

 

Hey you know drunk driving is behind such a tiny percentage of america traffic deaths, why not repeal those laws, it's not a big deal. 

 

 

just really

I'ma keep this really short: The CPRC is yet another gun industry lobbying tool. It literally has the tagline "More guns"   Frankly I can't even begin to describe how fundamentally flawed there. It equates general homicides, terrorists acts, cherry picks data across europe over 3, proceeds to then role in information from outside of europe, often dating to periods of political instability, jerks off about casualties, and and is littrealying lying in a few cases because no there were way more than 29  mass shootings in the USA between    Even if you take that statistic, Europe has over twice the US's population. So yay 25 mass shootings (many of which were political/religious terrorism related and aren't comparable phenomena) compared to 29 in the USA. But massive population disparity between the two.

It is a conservative research center, having worked for one myself I'm sure it has bias, but even with bias statistics, it still shows that the US is not the only place this happens. Originally I was just going to compile a huge list of European mass shootings but got lazy. I think terrorist acts of mass shootings and other general mass shootings are equally comparable in this case and should both be included. We've had numerous shootings that were or may (we don't know) be based on terrorism. Either way, both are related to the issue of gun control. 

 

 

 

What the hell even is this? Any statistic that claims to measure if banning guns reduce gun violence is lying through its teeth. No such data exists. *no one bans guns*. Wana go to canada? You can have a gun. Wanna go to france? You can have a  gun. Wanna go to switzerland? If you're talking to someone over 18, they probably can shoot better than the average american. Wana head anywhere in eastern europe? The rate of gun ownership out there is often higher than in the USA. 

 

By ban guns I mean ban certain type of guns or ban them all together. Yes, places do do that.

Idaho has a high gun death rate at 14.7 deaths per 100,000 people, but a homicide rate of only 2.0 per 100,000 people. Less than half the national average. (2015)

San Diegos homicide rate (smaller population than Idaho) was 2.7 per 100,000 people. (2015)

Also, Russias homicide rate is about twice as high as the US, despite having far more gun restrictions. 

You said yourself, the problem isn't guns, it's America.

 

 

 

Hey you know drunk driving is behind such a tiny percentage of america traffic deaths, why not repeal those laws, it's not a big deal. 

You're comparing apples to oranges here. On the issue of guns there are no laws to be repealed, only laws to be implemented. 

Also, cars actually kill far more people than guns. Drunk driving accounts for nearly 1/3 of all vehicle related deaths in the US and the rate of drunk driving deaths is very comparable if not almost identical to firearms related deaths in any given year.