"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I didn't say their lives weren't worth considering. I said (perhaps not clearly) that the idea of any kind of armed resistance to gun control is a survivalist fantasy that will never occur. The idea is not worth considering.
Not to mention that the emotional distress arguments somehow only apply to the military, and the gun fetishist are implicitly assumed to be immune to it.
One side is defending their home/neighborhood/compound/way of life/whatever. If you leave them alone they'll leave you alone.
The other is being ordered to assault a fellow citizen's home/neighborhood/compound/way of life/whatever.
"I'm going to defend what I love from tyranny" is different from "I'm being told to go fight this person who looks, talks, and acts like me whether I want to or not".
But again, this is a dumb tangent since Civil War 2 over gun control will never happen because Gun Control (in the sense that most people see it these days) will never happen.
Gun control will happen. I say that because gun control of some form has happened in every decade since America was founded. It's even happening now at state and local levels.
The entire idea that the current status quo - declining gun ownership + normalized mass shootings + conservative deadlock through gerrymandering - will never, ever produce new laws is actually kind of hilarious. It's basically gun owners yelling at the ocean to stop.
Strangely it feels like they're winning.
I'd have agreed a year ago. Right now, I'm running into way more people freaked out about the constant shootings, and very, very few who think the solution is for them to buy a gun.
Yeah they definitely are at the federal level, and any state and local laws are instantly challenged and with this group of supremes you are more likely to see those laws struck down.
Like Seattles ammo tax that should be within Seattle's taxing authority, but i'll probably end up dying at the altar of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
Okay, it was Schrodinger's suicide there for a while, but the BBC has just confirmed the shooter is indeed dead. I'll take that as fact. The BBC take extra care to get things right before they release a headline.
No not a crazy dude. A dude with a gun with an axe to grind.
this crops up time to time as a Semantics thing.... people who commit pre planned homicides are off.
that is not hand-waving or belittling the situation or the act. You average person is not "up for murder."
edit - but i see why its brought up as in retrospect you essentially can say that about most of these.... So wtf...
i suppose its an innate- not understanding how you could be brought to do such an act in myself that cause me to go with crazy.
We have had this discussion quite a bit. The average person really is "up for killing". All the research which says the opposite is pretty shit. It's neither controlled nor free from bias not accurate on any reasonable scale.
So, you want me to find the pictures of gun control policy postings in Sweringen-era Deadwood? Because the reality is that the US actually has, for most of its history, been fine with gun control. It's only in the past 30-odd that the issue has appeared, thanks to a concerted campaign by the gun industry.
In one city, in an enormous country where people didn't need background checks or mandatory two week waiting periods to buy guns? Where you needed a gun for safety because you could be traveling through a desert wasteland filled with animals and the Indian boogeyman?
Gun violence in the old west is glamorized and we all know it wasn't anywhere near what Hollywood depicts it as, but the old west didn't have three hundred million people living in it. On a side note, murder statistics in the late 1800s are kinda hard to come by on account of no one bothered to take any outside of very specific events.
And yet most frontier cities had strict gun control policies requiring surrender of weapons to the local police force on entry. Again, gun control was not an uncommon thing in the US.
That's not "gun control" in the sense that it's being pushed in modern times, that's "carry a gun all you like, just check your weapon at the door".
It didn't stop people from buying or owning guns, it just meant that people (who were law abiding) had to leave them temporarily with the sheriff, who probably oversaw a town of less than a hundred people. And it wasn't law, it was decided on a town by town basis based on who was in charge at the time.
What do you think a law is? If not authorities demanding acquiescence from a population?
Gun suicides are also a call for gun control. When england got rid of gas ovens overall suicide numbers went down because people who would have killed themselves with gas wouldn't do it through other means, if we could somehow cut down the number of guns in america most likely our overall suicide numbers would also go down.
Yes. It's worth noting that most suicides are impulsive acts; so reducing access to the means drives down overall rates. So posts like this:
Suicides are a call for mental health treatment not gun control.
If you can afford a gun, you can afford a CPAP mask and a helium tank rental. Or a six foot piece of rope, or a straight razor, or a bottle of pills, or a bus ticket to San Francisco if you're not looking for something particularly peaceful.
People who genuinely want to kill themselves will find a way to do so whether or not guns are available.
I find it interesting that this shooting had similar motives to the church shooting but this thread is discussing gun control while the other thread discussed the evils of the shooter's motivation.
Both of them are the product of racism, why is the discussion about this shooting so different?
Uhh no. I don't think this guy wanted to start a race war. They seem pretty far removed.
Also it just struck me that this Vox article went up only a few days ago containing an...arresting summary of gun violence statistics that should be required reading.
There. It's on the syllabus now. Do not participate in class until you have done the reading.
Most of the Vox article is terrible, including that graph.
You could just as easily plot a beautiful correlation line between "time spent near water" and "Drownings" but that isn't actual information. It just says that things are correlated with themselves. The better metric, for homicides, is to look at total homicides, and that correlation is far shittier.
Not really no. I mean it's lower but it's not shittier. To suggest that is to ignore how statistics work
Okay, it was Schrodinger's suicide there for a while, but the BBC has just confirmed the shooter is indeed dead. I'll take that as fact. The BBC take extra care to get things right before they release a headline.
everything was reported correctly.... they are running down an exacte time line live right now
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
Yeah the difference between this black shooter killing two white people over a percieved racial bias is that the race of his victims were incidental. It was a work place dispute where this particular person had a notion he was constantly being biased against, whether true or not his allegations are not at all like Dylann Roof. The race of his victims were not important to his crime.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
As long as Tom can walk into Wal Mart with $200 and his ID card and walk out with a shotgun they'll be winning.
As long as Dick can go to a shooting range, rent a handgun, and shoot it for a while they'll be winning.
As long as Harry can take the hunting rifle he got from his grandpa out to the desert to plink away at empty soda cans they'll be winning.
You would have to remove guns significantly from out nation's culture. Guns have been ingrained in our nation's culture since before we had a nation.
All of those are terrible examples of what is wrong. Buying a gun for recreational use shouldn't be cheap, quick, or without registration and limitation on location. If you want a cheap and quick gun, I call into question why you need one. No one should be able to rent a gun, period. The entire idea is terrible. You shouldn't be allowed to go fire ammunition at some random parcel unless it is deemed a hunting ground in season, and only then with the appropriate licence.
Slavery was part of our nation's culture since before we had a nation, as were concepts of semi-permanent indenture, viewed women as property, hating the Irish and catholic, stoning people for being a witch, and lots of other stupid things we overturned when they were pointed out as stupid or we outgrew (though, oddly enough, an alarmingly large amount of pro-gun folk are anti women, openly racist, hate non-protestant faiths, and are superstitious). Statements like that are the same as "well its always been there so no point" which is terrible, inaccurate, and not at all relevant to the current conversation.
Yeah the difference between this black shooter killing two white people over a percieved racial bias is that the race of his victims were incidental. It was a work place dispute where this particular person had a notion he was constantly being biased against, whether true or not his allegations are not at all like Dylann Roof. The race of his victims were not important to his crime.
Didn't his twitter make direct accusations of racism against both of the people he shot?
I'd say the race of his victims was pretty important to him.
here's another ridiculous infographic from that article for you
For some this is ridiculous, for others, this is glorious.
You do realize this is a thread about a mass murder that happened a few hours ago, right?
Since the very second post, this was always about using a tragedy to score political points for an agenda.
You are talking about yourself, yes? Cause that's all you have ever done in this thread.
Which is basically the reason the US is the way it is when it comes to gun violence. Because at the end of the day, there's a very vocal chuck of the populace who don't care how much violence guns cause, they just want their guns.
shryke on
+7
Options
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
Oh wow.... a robot license plate reader caught him.
Wow....
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
Also it just struck me that this Vox article went up only a few days ago containing an...arresting summary of gun violence statistics that should be required reading.
There. It's on the syllabus now. Do not participate in class until you have done the reading.
Most of the Vox article is terrible, including that graph.
You could just as easily plot a beautiful correlation line between "time spent near water" and "Drownings" but that isn't actual information. It just says that things are correlated with themselves. The better metric, for homicides, is to look at total homicides, and that correlation is far shittier.
No. There's still a strong correlation. Firearm prevalence doesn't correlate with non-firearm rates (positively or negatively) in a statistically significant way. They correlate very strongly with firearm homicides. As a result they correlate strongly with total homicide rates.
We found that state-level gun ownership as measured by the new proxy, is significantly associated with firearm and total homicides but not with non-firearm homicides.
In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.
...
We analyze the association between firearm availability and total homicide rates in both the 26 high-income or highly industrialized nations...
Across the 26 developed countries, the simple correlation coefficient between the gun availability proxy and the total homicide rate is 0.69;
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
So, almost safer than anytime in American history, and almost entirely unlikely to cause your death compared to other factors?
You're more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movies than to be shot at the movies, particularly if you're out of the very high risk categories.
He claimed they filed against him because of racism, I don't think it would have mattered if they were black, hispanic, or asian. He made similar complaints in florida, we have no idea the racial make up of that office.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I didn't say their lives weren't worth considering. I said (perhaps not clearly) that the idea of any kind of armed resistance to gun control is a survivalist fantasy that will never occur. The idea is not worth considering.
The fantasy is that they'd be effective. The reality is that they'd try anyway.
In any case, I misunderstood your post. You were arguing that it wouldn't spark a "civil war." I agree with you there.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Judging from what archaeologists have pieced together from prehistorical settlements, the natural state of humanity is Inbred Genocidal Cannibal. We are not a fundamentally nice species.
The entire point of civilization is to wrap people in safety and comfort with enough obligations, possessions, and personal connections that they barely resemble what they'd be in their natural state. The nation state has been better at this than any previous form of government - thanks largely to the joint ability to knit people into a national tribe while unambiguously claiming the legitimate right of force.
The latter is why most citizens of civilized nations don't feel a loss by their inability to build private arsenals. America is just a unique beast, largely because it is governed by a political culture that has used fear of the Native American then the African American and now the Latin American as a source of propaganda.
Yeah the difference between this black shooter killing two white people over a percieved racial bias is that the race of his victims were incidental. It was a work place dispute where this particular person had a notion he was constantly being biased against, whether true or not his allegations are not at all like Dylann Roof. The race of his victims were not important to his crime.
Didn't his twitter make direct accusations of racism against both of the people he shot?
I'd say the race of his victims was pretty important to him.
Killing people over racism (perceived or otherwise) is not quite the same thing as trying to 'start a race war'.
Unless the giant manifesto that he allegedly sent out indicates that he's hoping for more people to follow in his footsteps.
Which they might, for racially motivated reasons or others (or no perceivable reason at all).
And here I thought "fuck her right in the pussy" would be the reason journalists had to be wary around people while on assignment.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Do criminal shooters take pleasure from shooting a victim?
I think it's a safe bet the guy posting first person video footage of himself shooting three people and boasting about it on social media took pleasure from it, yeah.
I don't think pleasure is accurate here. He had a desire to resolve and publicize a grievance. He wasn't hunting the Most Dangerous Game for fun or some shit.
caveat: I managed to narrowly avoid twitter's autoplay, I haven't actually seen his video
here's another ridiculous infographic from that article for you
For some this is ridiculous, for others, this is glorious.
You do realize this is a thread about a mass murder that happened a few hours ago, right?
Since the very second post, this was always about using a tragedy to score political points for an agenda.
Oh fucking shut up
In the US today, it is never too soon to talk about gun control. I'm not being facetious here. The proper response to ALL these events is, how can we learn from this to prevent future gun violence. There is no too soon.
(though, oddly enough, an alarmingly large amount of pro-gun folk are anti women, openly racist, hate non-protestant faiths, and are superstitious
Ok, back the truck up for a second.
I'm not defending the pro gun camp here, but I'd like you to provide some sort of proof of this because it really sounds like you're talking entirely out of your ass.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Yeah the difference between this black shooter killing two white people over a percieved racial bias is that the race of his victims were incidental. It was a work place dispute where this particular person had a notion he was constantly being biased against, whether true or not his allegations are not at all like Dylann Roof. The race of his victims were not important to his crime.
Didn't his twitter make direct accusations of racism against both of the people he shot?
I'd say the race of his victims was pretty important to him.
As far as that tweet shows, the racism* of his victims was important to him.
As long as Tom can walk into Wal Mart with $200 and his ID card and walk out with a shotgun they'll be winning.
As long as Dick can go to a shooting range, rent a handgun, and shoot it for a while they'll be winning.
As long as Harry can take the hunting rifle he got from his grandpa out to the desert to plink away at empty soda cans they'll be winning.
You would have to remove guns significantly from out nation's culture. Guns have been ingrained in our nation's culture since before we had a nation.
The irony is that, with the exception of the first, those things are possible in nation's with strong control laws. They still hunt in Australia and the UK still has gun ranges.
Which illustrates the point - the right wing panic over gun laws operates from a place of irrational paranoia.
0
Options
Nbspshe laughs, like Godher mind's like a diamondRegistered Userregular
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
So, almost safer than anytime in American history, and almost entirely unlikely to cause your death compared to other factors?
You're more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movies than to be shot at the movies, particularly if you're out of the very high risk categories.
It's as if for a liberal there's nothing more terrifying in this nation than a gun.
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”
“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."
" It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.
Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, and calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. “Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin’. "
" --He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work. --He says he has been attacked by black men and white females. --He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man
“Yes, it will sound like I am angry...I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace....”
“The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily...I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”."
I really wish I knew this guy's motives and why it was those two in particular.
What a sad day.
Below is what he was Tweeting just before he uploaded the videos of the shooting (ie while he was on the run). I can confirm it is genuine as I was reading his Twitter at the time and saw these tweets appear live. He claims that Alison Parker made racist comments, he reported her, and yet she was promoted to reporter (he was a reporter previously) and Adam Ward reported him to the news station's HR department shortly before he was firing. It appears he blames these two for his career ending.
Beyond. that... He faxed a 23 page document to ABC News, which I am sure will reveal more.
Also something I noted: His Twitter account was very new (couple of weeks tops) and was basically a rundown of his achievements throughout his life in chronological order - pictures of him as a kid, in High School, sports achievements, prom, his first TV appearance etc, ending with the above.
In retrospect it would seem that this was premeditated and that this was basically his eulogy to himself.
*edit* ABC News have released some details of the manifesto which states that the Charleston shootings were the impetus and that he wanted to continue the 'Race War' that Dylan Roof was trying to start.
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
So, almost safer than anytime in American history, and almost entirely unlikely to cause your death compared to other factors?
You're more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movies than to be shot at the movies, particularly if you're out of the very high risk categories.
That doesn't mean I should be OK with the possibility of being shot at the movies.
As long as Tom can walk into Wal Mart with $200 and his ID card and walk out with a shotgun they'll be winning.
As long as Dick can go to a shooting range, rent a handgun, and shoot it for a while they'll be winning.
As long as Harry can take the hunting rifle he got from his grandpa out to the desert to plink away at empty soda cans they'll be winning.
You would have to remove guns significantly from out nation's culture. Guns have been ingrained in our nation's culture since before we had a nation.
All of those are terrible examples of what is wrong. Buying a gun for recreational use shouldn't be cheap, quick, or without registration and limitation on location. If you want a cheap and quick gun, I call into question why you need one. No one should be able to rent a gun, period. The entire idea is terrible. You shouldn't be allowed to go fire ammunition at some random parcel unless it is deemed a hunting ground in season, and only then with the appropriate licence.
Why the fuck shouldn't someone be able to rent a gun? Even if your opinion is that all gun firers should be trained, permited, and only be allowed to use guns at specific locations, unless you want to eliminate all gun use, to include Olympic games and the like, gun rental is a perfectly reasonable way to do things. Hell, it is even better in a high control environment, as you can have people simply rent guns as necessary from tightly controlled and licensed gun clubs, rather than allowing personal ownership. As a practical point you might want to make it longer term so people can get their preferred settings and the like, but that's not a public policy problem.
Slavery was part of our nation's culture since before we had a nation, as were concepts of semi-permanent indenture, viewed women as property, hating the Irish and catholic, stoning people for being a witch, and lots of other stupid things we overturned when they were pointed out as stupid or we outgrew (though, oddly enough, an alarmingly large amount of pro-gun folk are anti women, openly racist, hate non-protestant faiths, and are superstitious). Statements like that are the same as "well its always been there so no point" which is terrible, inaccurate, and not at all relevant to the current conversation.
Biathlons and chattel slavery: moral siblings... :bzz:
Not to mention that the emotional distress arguments somehow only apply to the military, and the gun fetishist are implicitly assumed to be immune to it.
One side is defending their home/neighborhood/compound/way of life/whatever. If you leave them alone they'll leave you alone.
The other is being ordered to assault a fellow citizen's home/neighborhood/compound/way of life/whatever.
"I'm going to defend what I love from tyranny" is different from "I'm being told to go fight this person who looks, talks, and acts like me whether I want to or not".
But again, this is a dumb tangent since Civil War 2 over gun control will never happen because Gun Control (in the sense that most people see it these days) will never happen.
Gun control will happen. I say that because gun control of some form has happened in every decade since America was founded. It's even happening now at state and local levels.
The entire idea that the current status quo - declining gun ownership + normalized mass shootings + conservative deadlock through gerrymandering - will never, ever produce new laws is actually kind of hilarious. It's basically gun owners yelling at the ocean to stop.
Strangely it feels like they're winning.
I'd have agreed a year ago. Right now, I'm running into way more people freaked out about the constant shootings, and very, very few who think the solution is for them to buy a gun.
It's working on the local level, where it actually matters - on the federal and state level, nothing's budged an inch.
(though, oddly enough, an alarmingly large amount of pro-gun folk are anti women, openly racist, hate non-protestant faiths, and are superstitious
Ok, back the truck up for a second.
I'm not defending the pro gun camp here, but I'd like you to provide some sort of proof of this because it really sounds like you're talking entirely out of your ass.
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
So, almost safer than anytime in American history, and almost entirely unlikely to cause your death compared to other factors?
You're more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movies than to be shot at the movies, particularly if you're out of the very high risk categories.
It's as if for a liberal there's nothing more terrifying in this nation than a gun.
Well, your insights on this issue are certainly glib, superficial and lacking in emotional effect.
here's another ridiculous infographic from that article for you
For some this is ridiculous, for others, this is glorious.
You do realize this is a thread about a mass murder that happened a few hours ago, right?
Since the very second post, this was always about using a tragedy to score political points for an agenda.
You are talking about yourself, yes? Cause that's all you have ever done in this thread.
Which is basically the reason the US is the way it is when it comes to gun violence. Because at the end of the day, there's a very vocal chuck of the populace who don't care how much violence guns cause, they just want their guns.
Posts
I didn't say their lives weren't worth considering. I said (perhaps not clearly) that the idea of any kind of armed resistance to gun control is a survivalist fantasy that will never occur. The idea is not worth considering.
I'd have agreed a year ago. Right now, I'm running into way more people freaked out about the constant shootings, and very, very few who think the solution is for them to buy a gun.
Like Seattles ammo tax that should be within Seattle's taxing authority, but i'll probably end up dying at the altar of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
pleasepaypreacher.net
Live Press Conference: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34067421
Steam: adamjnet
As long as Tom can walk into Wal Mart with $200 and his ID card and walk out with a shotgun they'll be winning.
As long as Dick can go to a shooting range, rent a handgun, and shoot it for a while they'll be winning.
As long as Harry can take the hunting rifle he got from his grandpa out to the desert to plink away at empty soda cans they'll be winning.
You would have to remove guns significantly from out nation's culture. Guns have been ingrained in our nation's culture since before we had a nation.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
We have had this discussion quite a bit. The average person really is "up for killing". All the research which says the opposite is pretty shit. It's neither controlled nor free from bias not accurate on any reasonable scale.
What do you think a law is? If not authorities demanding acquiescence from a population?
Yes. It's worth noting that most suicides are impulsive acts; so reducing access to the means drives down overall rates. So posts like this:
Are bullshit. Super bullshit even
Uhh no. I don't think this guy wanted to start a race war. They seem pretty far removed.
Not really no. I mean it's lower but it's not shittier. To suggest that is to ignore how statistics work
What a sad day.
everything was reported correctly.... they are running down an exacte time line live right now
The Sheriff of my city can meet me at the city limits and tell me that I have to give him butterscotch candy or gtfo, that doesn't mean it's a law.
pleasepaypreacher.net
All of those are terrible examples of what is wrong. Buying a gun for recreational use shouldn't be cheap, quick, or without registration and limitation on location. If you want a cheap and quick gun, I call into question why you need one. No one should be able to rent a gun, period. The entire idea is terrible. You shouldn't be allowed to go fire ammunition at some random parcel unless it is deemed a hunting ground in season, and only then with the appropriate licence.
Slavery was part of our nation's culture since before we had a nation, as were concepts of semi-permanent indenture, viewed women as property, hating the Irish and catholic, stoning people for being a witch, and lots of other stupid things we overturned when they were pointed out as stupid or we outgrew (though, oddly enough, an alarmingly large amount of pro-gun folk are anti women, openly racist, hate non-protestant faiths, and are superstitious). Statements like that are the same as "well its always been there so no point" which is terrible, inaccurate, and not at all relevant to the current conversation.
Well Fuck :x
Didn't his twitter make direct accusations of racism against both of the people he shot?
I'd say the race of his victims was pretty important to him.
You are talking about yourself, yes? Cause that's all you have ever done in this thread.
Which is basically the reason the US is the way it is when it comes to gun violence. Because at the end of the day, there's a very vocal chuck of the populace who don't care how much violence guns cause, they just want their guns.
Wow....
No. There's still a strong correlation. Firearm prevalence doesn't correlate with non-firearm rates (positively or negatively) in a statistically significant way. They correlate very strongly with firearm homicides. As a result they correlate strongly with total homicide rates.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Apparently he sent a gigantic "manifesto" to NBC so I expect we'll hear about the contents of that at some point, if only in summary.
So, almost safer than anytime in American history, and almost entirely unlikely to cause your death compared to other factors?
You're more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movies than to be shot at the movies, particularly if you're out of the very high risk categories.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The fantasy is that they'd be effective. The reality is that they'd try anyway.
In any case, I misunderstood your post. You were arguing that it wouldn't spark a "civil war." I agree with you there.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The entire point of civilization is to wrap people in safety and comfort with enough obligations, possessions, and personal connections that they barely resemble what they'd be in their natural state. The nation state has been better at this than any previous form of government - thanks largely to the joint ability to knit people into a national tribe while unambiguously claiming the legitimate right of force.
The latter is why most citizens of civilized nations don't feel a loss by their inability to build private arsenals. America is just a unique beast, largely because it is governed by a political culture that has used fear of the Native American then the African American and now the Latin American as a source of propaganda.
Killing people over racism (perceived or otherwise) is not quite the same thing as trying to 'start a race war'.
Unless the giant manifesto that he allegedly sent out indicates that he's hoping for more people to follow in his footsteps.
Which they might, for racially motivated reasons or others (or no perceivable reason at all).
And here I thought "fuck her right in the pussy" would be the reason journalists had to be wary around people while on assignment.
I don't think pleasure is accurate here. He had a desire to resolve and publicize a grievance. He wasn't hunting the Most Dangerous Game for fun or some shit.
caveat: I managed to narrowly avoid twitter's autoplay, I haven't actually seen his video
In the US today, it is never too soon to talk about gun control. I'm not being facetious here. The proper response to ALL these events is, how can we learn from this to prevent future gun violence. There is no too soon.
Ok, back the truck up for a second.
I'm not defending the pro gun camp here, but I'd like you to provide some sort of proof of this because it really sounds like you're talking entirely out of your ass.
* real or imagined
The irony is that, with the exception of the first, those things are possible in nation's with strong control laws. They still hunt in Australia and the UK still has gun ranges.
Which illustrates the point - the right wing panic over gun laws operates from a place of irrational paranoia.
It's as if for a liberal there's nothing more terrifying in this nation than a gun.
ABC, technically (not that it is important). ABC has released some details:
http://abcnews.go.com/beta/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339
Edit: Some highlights:
“Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…”
“What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them."
" It is unclear whose initials he is referring to. He continues, “As for Dylann Roof? You (deleted)! You want a race war (deleted)? BRING IT THEN YOU WHITE …(deleted)!!!” He said Jehovah spoke to him, telling him to act.
Later in the manifesto, the writer quotes the Virginia Tech mass killer, Seung Hui Cho, and calls him “his boy,” and expresses admiration for the Columbine High School killers. “Also, I was influenced by Seung–Hui Cho. That’s my boy right there. He got NEARLY double the amount that Eric Harris and Dylann Klebold got…just sayin’. "
" --He says has suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work. --He says he has been attacked by black men and white females. --He talks about how he was attacked for being a gay, black man
“Yes, it will sound like I am angry...I am. And I have every right to be. But when I leave this Earth, the only emotion I want to feel is peace....”
“The church shooting was the tipping point…but my anger has been building steadily...I’ve been a human powder keg for a while…just waiting to go BOOM!!!!”."
Below is what he was Tweeting just before he uploaded the videos of the shooting (ie while he was on the run). I can confirm it is genuine as I was reading his Twitter at the time and saw these tweets appear live. He claims that Alison Parker made racist comments, he reported her, and yet she was promoted to reporter (he was a reporter previously) and Adam Ward reported him to the news station's HR department shortly before he was firing. It appears he blames these two for his career ending.
Beyond. that... He faxed a 23 page document to ABC News, which I am sure will reveal more.
Also something I noted: His Twitter account was very new (couple of weeks tops) and was basically a rundown of his achievements throughout his life in chronological order - pictures of him as a kid, in High School, sports achievements, prom, his first TV appearance etc, ending with the above.
In retrospect it would seem that this was premeditated and that this was basically his eulogy to himself.
*edit* ABC News have released some details of the manifesto which states that the Charleston shootings were the impetus and that he wanted to continue the 'Race War' that Dylan Roof was trying to start.
http://abcnews.go.com/beta/US/shooting-alleged-gunman-details-grievances-suicide-notes/story?id=33336339
This is not good. For anybody.
Steam: adamjnet
That doesn't mean I should be OK with the possibility of being shot at the movies.
This should not be a possibility at all ever.
BF3 Battlelog | Twitter | World of Warships | World of Tanks | Wishlist
Why the fuck shouldn't someone be able to rent a gun? Even if your opinion is that all gun firers should be trained, permited, and only be allowed to use guns at specific locations, unless you want to eliminate all gun use, to include Olympic games and the like, gun rental is a perfectly reasonable way to do things. Hell, it is even better in a high control environment, as you can have people simply rent guns as necessary from tightly controlled and licensed gun clubs, rather than allowing personal ownership. As a practical point you might want to make it longer term so people can get their preferred settings and the like, but that's not a public policy problem.
Biathlons and chattel slavery: moral siblings... :bzz:
It's working on the local level, where it actually matters - on the federal and state level, nothing's budged an inch.
There is no elephant?
Holy shit
Ok, I'm done with this thread.
Well, your insights on this issue are certainly glib, superficial and lacking in emotional effect.
No. Preacher, post 2:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/33281137/#Comment_33281137
Being goosey just a couple posts down:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/33281157/#Comment_33281157
SyphonBlue comes in right after:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/33281166/#Comment_33281166
Etc.