Jump to content
natininja

Terrorism / Mass Shootings

Recommended Posts

I always find the equating of US Constitutional Rights to some hallowed version of liberty disturbing.  There is plenty of liberty around the world with some pretty common sense gun restrictions.  We've just gone off the deep end in this country by misinterpreting a 240+ year old document to allow for irresponsible ownership of weapons that are one hundred times more destructive than they were when the Bill of Rights was written.  It is a bizarre fetish that has cost the lives of countless individuals and created a country that is tremendously more violent/dangerious than other free countries.  We actually have a majority of legislators and a President passing laws to allow for the mentally ill to own firearms.  What exactly is the point of that?  And what about removing the restriction on silencers which have very little practical purpose (decreases range and accuracy while still requiring ear protection) with a tremendously dangerous downside to an active shooter trying not to be located.  What it comes down to is some people care more about a perverted version of liberty than the lives and safety of themselves and their fellow Americans and that it what is truly sad about all this.

 

Silencers actually increase accuracy, just as any longer barrel on a gun, does. As far as range, I doubt it makes any significant difference. Silencers or 'suppressors' don't really work well on semi and especially fully-automatic weapons. Still, I don't see why anyone would need one unless they're a hit man or happen to be allergic to the ear plugs they're using.

Yeah they can decrease some noise, but it is still LOUD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And imagine that the primary purpose of pizza, when it was invented, wasn't to fill your tummy with deliciousness. It was: killing.

 

I mean i f*cking love pizza but if pizza violently killed 30,000 people a year i'd be like okay maybe none of us should have pizza.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate happens every time there is a horrible mass shooting. I think I speak for the vast majority of people when I say that it's completely realistic to ban auto and semi-automatic weapons from the general public. There's still a chance that this could happen, but at least it's been made somewhat harder. The problem is that the NRA feeds money to so many career Republican legislators.

 

I'm not sure what legally constitutes 'mentally-ill' but I'm not comfortable with those who are suddenly put on SSRIs, Lithium, Xanax and other Benzos, or abuse alcohol to self-medicate, being openly allowed to purchase guns. As a side note, alcohol is involved in 40% of violent crimes. That's a fact, despite it being available on every corner in America. Mind-altering substances contribute substantially to these tragedies and I think that gets overlooked. There's definitely more that we could do to screen people.

 

When I was 26, I considered going into the Air Force; met with a recruiter and all that. I completely blew the ASVAB out of the water in terms of percentile but ultimately decided it just wasn't for me. Anyway, I know for a fact that they don't let you in and operate firearms without psychological evaluation. Why should  the U.S. military's standards be any different than civilians who can acquire the same kinds of weapons? It's completely asinine.

 

Unless you're planning to go bat-sh!t crazy and kill a crowd of people, there's no reason to own and use something like an Ak-47 or M 16, as a civilian. I'm just not convinced that banning all guns nationwide would be effective when it comes to owning something like a .22 Beretta. I do know that countries where guns are entirely banned, experience much more knife crime and bomb explosions. I know that's a fact because I read about it in the news all the time and have even watched summits from prominent sociology professors who have met and were all perplexed, struggling to explain spikes in knife crime in certain countries in Europe. I guess it never dawned on them that guns are banned and that crazy people use whatever resources are available to them.  I haven't looked at statistics yet, to make a determination on whether or not it would be effective to have guns entirely banned. Yeah, even a .22 pistol commonly used  for self-defense is capable of 'getting the job done' by killing somebody but I think that when it comes to having such a horrible motive of wanting to kill as many people as possible before being caught - where there's a will, there's ultimately a way and crazy people will find it. In this country, it just happens to be the case that it's more easily achievable with automatic or semi-automatic rifles than having to be much more methodical, by designing and planting bombs. Those bombs will always be exponentially more effective than .22 pistols designed for self-defense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you cant ban all guns anyway. there are way too many. Prohibition was an absolute failure so anyone who wants to ban all guns is not being realistic.

 

Plus, as long as the 2nd amendment is in effect, it is not realistic either and people who champion that argument can be dismissed completely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ you cant ban all guns anyway. there are way too many. Prohibition was an absolute failure so anyone who wants to ban all guns is not being realistic.

 

Plus, as long as the 2nd amendment is in effect, it is not realistic either and people who champion that argument can be dismissed completely

 

It's amazing how people act as if the rest of the world doesn't exist, or that massive change happens relatively often, meaning every couple hundred years or even less. I suppose we're due. But I don't know if America can change if its borders do not change.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ not in the short term, no. But we can ban the production and sale of new units (I'm really focusing on the semi auto / high powered stuff), stopping the proliferation of them. Then we just have to deal with the existing inventory. It might take decades for them to ultimately be reclaimed, fall into disrepair, and it wouldn't get rid of all of them, but the alternative is doing nothing, and that's unacceptable. Baby steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islamic State group claims deadly Damascus bomb attack

 

BEIRUT: The Islamic State group today claimed a bomb attack at a police station in the Syrian capital Damascus a day earlier that killed at least 17 people.

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/islamic-state-group-claims-deadly-damascus-bomb-attack/articleshow/60924776.cms

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall homicide rate decreased during that time as well as all violent crime.  I'd like to see a comparison to the rate of decrease of all violent crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homicide rate via gun and declined dramatically as gun sales/ownership has increased

 

guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0.jpg?itok=kGPbVW77

 

Since correlation definitely does equal causation, then apparently this is valid too:

7467489_orig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a guy who is a collector and has a cache of guns. It is like collecting anything else, some people like cars, some people collect baseball cards. It is the same mentality.

 

Why should someone be able to collect military grade weapons?

 

Why should someone not?

 

Answer the question?  Why should someone be able to collect these types of weapons?  Why? 

 

I agree with Buckeye here in that most collectors, I would bet 99.9% will never do anything like we have seen so common in this country over the last two decades, but there's still that .1% that can do bad.  I get you can say that about any dangerous collector's items, even cars, but these weapons have been made with the intent to kill.  This guy in Las Vegas up until Sunday night had shown no signs of being mentally ill, but there's many out there that can get their hands on these guns, go through some traumatic event in their lives and just lose it.  Mental illness is a completely different topic for another day, but let's say this person has now collected military grade weapons over the last several years, has a breakdown somewhere in life, and decides to just go postal.  In Nevada it was fairly easy for him to get the guns, and it's even easier for them to modify these weapons to cause even more damage.  Hell, you can even go on YouTube and learn how to modify the weapons for less than $100.  Ridiculous.  Again, the statistics show just how bad it is in this country when it comes to guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homicide rate via gun and declined dramatically as gun sales/ownership has increased

 

guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0.jpg?itok=kGPbVW77

 

Since correlation definitely does equal causation, then apparently this is valid too:

7467489_orig.png

 

The vast majority of gun deaths are via handguns, and the majority of those are suicides. The vast majority of mass shooting are also via handguns, pistols etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian Klaas‏Verified account @brianklaas  8h8 hours ago

 

Imagine if, after 9/11, Republicans said "now is not the time to discuss making it harder for people to bring box cutters onto airplanes."


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we lose if most of the guns go away? Serious question.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All violent crime is down since about 1990 in the U.S. and other industrialized countries for a variety of reasons.  One is pure demographics -- there were far fewer young men by 2000 than there were in 1990 thanks to the sharp decline in the nation's birthrate enabled by oral contraception in the mid-1960s and the legalization of abortion in 1973.  The later probably kept a lot of people from being born into the bad family and economic situations that set the stage for violent crime.  Anti-abortion people love the poor's babies until they are born and their tax dollars are spent raising them and in some cases imprisoning them.   

 

Another lesser-known and somewhat controversial issue was the removal of lead from the environment.  There have been marked reductions in crime in all areas of the world where lead paint and leaded gasoline were banned in the 1970s and 1980s.  However, that phenomenon was contemporaneous with the decline in birthrate, so it's unclear what influence it had as a percentage.  Lead exposure in children is linked directly to a lack of impulse control, other emotional issues, and therefore crime. 

 

A third issue that has reduced murders by gunfire is the proliferation of cell phones.  People can now easily call an ambulance or helicopter.  That goes for accidents, suicide attempts, and violent crime.  And once at the hospital, no doubt gunshot would treatment is better today than it was in 1990. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake- while your historical research is second to none on some of these matters, it is irrelevant in regards to what the 2nd amendment says. Ultimately, you need to look no further to the 2003/04 Heller Case that the Supreme Court decided in favor of Heller stating that DC did not have the right to ban handguns in the district. That argument has already been litigated by the SC and it has decided that there is a right to own guns by the Constitution under the 2nd amendment.

 

 

 

This quote is amazing -- former justice Berger totally nails it.  If the state militias were to be "well-regulated", why wouldn't the individual?

 

Now look at how few views this video has, but how nasty the NRA commenters are. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His arsenal of guns was purchased legally and all background checks were followed:

 

 

IIRC, NV does not require guns to be registered so one can collect all the weapons they want. We always speak of 2A right to the individual; should it be such that an individual obtain enough firepower to be a "well-regulated militia" by himself?

Is there a limit on how many guns an individual can own? I don't think so. When NY passed an AR registration a small % registered. Same deal in Connecticut, out 350,000 ARs a small % registered.

 

Fewer than 45,000 assault-style weapons have been registered in New York state since a landmark gun control act took effect in 2013...

 

In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police....

 

By comparison, individuals in Connecticut, a state with roughly one-fifth the population of New York, registered more than 50,000 assault-style weapons after similar legislation was passed there in April 2013.

 

Law enforcement experts have estimated that there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapon in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/23/not-many-people-obeying-new-york-state-a

 

That rather undermines the claim of "law-abiding gun owners", doesn't it.  Gun fetishists will do almost anything to protect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that complicated.  The United States used to be a 90%+ farming nation, back when crops and livestock were menaced by wolves, coyotes, etc.  Rifles were a necessary tool on farms then and sometimes still are.  But only 2% of the United States citizenry is now employed in agriculture.  Ranchers are about the only people who could make a legitimate claim to needing semiautomatic rifles for a legit purpose.  About the only citizens who can make a legit argument for needing guns for self-defense are those who live or work in wilderness areas where grizzly bears are part of the landscape. 

 

Nobody over in England or Japan or Korea is watching what just happened in Las Vegas, or the scores of other mass shootings that have occurred over the past 10-15 years, and is calling their MP's demanding similar "freedoms" to what we "enjoy". 

 

On the other hand, I suspect you will find more than a few city residents with other options that wouldn't consider living there without the means to defend themselves.  I'm one of them.

 

And yet you're more likely to die by your own gun than you are from a home invasion or street attack.  Also, something like 40% of all gun crimes are committed using lost or stolen guns from legal owners.  There are so many guns out there in residential homes, that they fall into criminal hands pretty regularly.  I'd say that's a problem.  There is some serious negligence going on, and there should be repercussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a guy who is a collector and has a cache of guns. It is like collecting anything else, some people like cars, some people collect baseball cards. It is the same mentality.

 

Pete Rose's rookie card isn't going to murder 60 people if it falls into the wrong hands.  Terrible comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the collector thing, but why not require the individual to be background checked, all the guns registered and the individual properly insured?  Why allow for weapons and accessories that allows the individual to be so dangerous as to be able to take out dozens of people in a very short period of time?  That is what I don't get.

 

The issue with everything along these lines is that it establishes the premise that it is acceptable to trade liberty (and constitutional rights) for safety, or more accurately, for a chance at safety.  So what if we pass a law along these lines and it turns out that background checks and registration do not reduce gun violence?  The inevitable argument is that we need to go further--the precedent has been set, the right can be infringed as far as necessary to eliminate mass shootings, a potentially unachievable goal (which is perfect for those who want an inexhaustible pretext to restrict gun ownership anyway, regardless of pretext), so now we move on to restrictions on manufacture, transfer, and ownership.

 

Why is it then that there is a pretty obvious trend line for states with increasing number of household guns have an increasing level of gun violence?  Why is it that no other Western nation has America's gun violence problem?  Are Americans uniquely and inherently violent people?  Maybe other countries should be banning us like we do Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a guy who is a collector and has a cache of guns. It is like collecting anything else, some people like cars, some people collect baseball cards. It is the same mentality.

 

Why should someone be able to collect military grade weapons?

 

Why should someone not?

 

Columbine

Newtown

Virginia Tech

San Diego

Las Vegas

Jonesboro

Orlando

 

And over 270 mass killings just this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ But it is not for you individual to decide that. That is the beauty of liberty

 

I wish people applied this same logic to the NFL protests.

 

Or abortion, or LGBT rights, or voting, or...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homicide rate via gun and declined dramatically as gun sales/ownership has increased

 

guns_per_person_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993_to_2013_0.jpg?itok=kGPbVW77

 

Correlation is not causation.  There are tons of theories on why the crime rate dropped, including the legalization of abortion in the 1970s.  Also, your graph doesn't show a linear trend.  Guns keep going up, but crime has not dropped at an equal rate, which would indicate that guns aren't actually the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Humans will always murder, no gun law can change that!” screams a country that outlawed too much toothpaste on a plane.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do we lose if most of the guns go away? Serious question.

 

YouTube videos on gun fails.  Redneck weekends would have to switch to more pickup truck sofa skiing.  Less bragging at the VA about someone can totally shoot a target at 500 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if Kim Jong-un gets nukes? Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a guy who is a collector and has a cache of guns. It is like collecting anything else, some people like cars, some people collect baseball cards. It is the same mentality.

 

Pete Rose's rookie card isn't going to murder 60 people if it falls into the wrong hands.  Terrible comparison.

 

Yeah, but that's the kind of stuff that got O.J. actually behind bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the collector thing, but why not require the individual to be background checked, all the guns registered and the individual properly insured?  Why allow for weapons and accessories that allows the individual to be so dangerous as to be able to take out dozens of people in a very short period of time?  That is what I don't get.

 

The issue with everything along these lines is that it establishes the premise that it is acceptable to trade liberty (and constitutional rights) for safety, or more accurately, for a chance at safety.  So what if we pass a law along these lines and it turns out that background checks and registration do not reduce gun violence?  The inevitable argument is that we need to go further--the precedent has been set, the right can be infringed as far as necessary to eliminate mass shootings, a potentially unachievable goal (which is perfect for those who want an inexhaustible pretext to restrict gun ownership anyway, regardless of pretext), so now we move on to restrictions on manufacture, transfer, and ownership.

 

I want the freedom to have Nukes.  If I can't destroy all life on this planet at the push of a button, can it really be said that I am truly "free"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegas shooter wired $100K to Philippines last week: https://t.co/5DP7GFq6LU


"Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." -- Tommy Douglas, Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister and the seventh Premier of Saskatchewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islamic State claims deadly attack on court in Libya's Misrata

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security/islamic-state-claims-deadly-attack-on-court-in-libyas-misrata-idUSKCN1C91CU

 

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Gunmen killed at least three people and wounded 35 on Wednesday in a suicide attack on a court complex in the Libyan city of Misrata, officials and a witness said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares if Kim Jong-un gets nukes? Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

 

In fairness, that's exactly the argument for why Kim Jong-Un should NOT get nukes.  It's also why we were quite rightly vastly more terrified of the USSR's nuclear arsenal than France's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marseille attack was the same day as the Las Vegas shooting. ISIS has claimed responsibility:

 

French police detain four people over knife attack in Marseille

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20171004-french-police-detain-four-people-knife-attack-marseille-station

 

French authorities on Tuesday detained four people suspected of helping a man who later stabbed to death two women in the southern port city of Marseille.

 

In a separate case, five people remained in custody after being detained by French authorities over an apparent failed bombing attempt in an apartment building in a chic Paris neighborhood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if that person was in the United States.  That individual would have been able to at least double that number of casualties with such easy access to deadly weapons.


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

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.   Restore formatting

  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...