Terrorists strike yet again

[LeVeL]

Every gun owner I know is an irrational Trump supporter. This act was committed by an irrational gun owner. If he had voted for Trump, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Spoken like a true Californian. I know a ton of pro-2a gun owners that don't like Trump.

 

[Cellos88GT]

Aside from that look at Iraq and all the trouble we had there fighting insurgents, guerrila warfare is very difficult to defend against.

When you're abiding by the Geneva conventions yeah, fighting against guerrilla warfare can be difficult.

It's the only point.

Except, I don't care. I still wouldn't be surprised if the shooter voted for Trump.

6 million Jews sent to their deaths is an oversimplification of an example of government tyranny? Good to know.

The rest of your quote, I'm struggling to understand what that has to do with government tyranny.

I said over-speculation, as in your hypothesis that if the citizens of Austria were armed, they wouldn't have been taken over by Nazi-Germany. As it completely ignores literally every single element that caused the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in the first place.

Outside influences was not part of your argument, you basically just came out and argued Goliath will always beat David. History proves you are wrong.

I didn't say it blatantly but I hinted at the problem:

Never mind the fact that such instability in the U.S. makes it ripe for takeover from a foreign power like China or Russia?

China/Russia could easily influence a particular side in a supposed modern civil-war and help shape their own outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Spoken like a true Californian. I know a ton of pro-2a gun owners that don't like Trump.

Ok, I know three gun owners that are anti-Trump. However, I know 20 or so that definitely voted for him.

 

[kunedog]

Ok, I know three gun owners that are anti-Trump. However, I know 20 or so that definitely voted for him.

I'm gonna guess these are all legal gun owners. You might find a different ratio among illegal gun owners (as with legal vs. illegal immigrants).

 

[_HighVoltage_]

To sum up the last page and a half, you guys have moved away from the incident that left 58 people dead, and instead began to debate (again) the rationalization and potential benefit of having the 2nd amendment, sometimes using outlandish examples. Let's get back on topic. Let's say, I get to agree with you that guns aren't the problem, and gun control won't work. What do you propose be done to prevent mass shootings in the future? So far only Spectre offered a solution, which was more in the lines of punishment and its prevention aspect relies on some mass shootings happening so that other shooters see the punishment and think twice whether they want to kill people or not.

Propose an workable preventative measure/policy that isn't gun control, go ahead, I'm listening.

 

[RdKetchup]

Regarding type of weapons used, latest report I read suggests legally purchased weapons with legal modifications to make it easier to shoot faster (probably bump-fire stock or something like the Fostech Echo trigger).

 

[LeVeL]

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
-Thomas Brackett Reed

To sum up the last page and a half, you guys have moved away from the incident that left 58 people dead, and instead began to debate (again) the rationalization and potential benefit of having the 2nd amendment, sometimes using outlandish examples. Let's get back on topic. Let's say, I get to agree with you that guns aren't the problem, and gun control won't work. What do you propose be done to prevent mass shootings in the future? So far only Spectre offered a solution, which was more in the lines of punishment and its prevention aspect relies on some mass shootings happening so that other shooters see the punishment and think twice whether they want to kill people or not.

Propose an workable preventative measure/policy that isn't gun control, go ahead, I'm listening.

1. Get rid of gun free zones. Yes, I realize that in this particular case it wouldn't have made a difference but in countless others it very well could've - at the very least we know for a fact that the majority of these scumbags seek out gun free zones (such as schools, universities, etc). It's insane to me that we refuse to protect our own kids.

2. We need better mental healthcare. Also, to echo Spectre, we need to stop letting dangerous folks out. If you're deemed too dangerous to legally buy a gun, I don't want you in my neighborhood - I want you behind bars.

Regarding type of weapons used, latest report I read suggests legally purchased weapons with legal modifications to make it easier to shoot faster (probably bump-fire stock or something like the Fostech Echo trigger).

If true, this would be an exception to the rule - most mass shooters do not get guns legally. Also, NPR said this morning that a bump fire stock concerts a semi-auto to full-auto, which is false - you phrased it better.

 

[RdKetchup]

If true, this would be an exception to the rule - most mass shooters do not get guns legally.

Around here mass shooting are pretty much all committed with legally purchased firearms.

The irony is that the type used for the ?cole Polytechnique shooting, the Ruger Mini-14, that brought us a lot of new gun legislation, is still classified a non-restricted weapon, same for the Beretta PX4 Storm (used in the Dawson College shooting), or the CZ 858 (Quebec Mosque shooting).

 

[_HighVoltage_]

1. Get rid of gun free zones. Yes, I realize that in this particular case it wouldn't have made a difference but in countless others it very well could've - at the very least we know for a fact that the majority of these scumbags seek out gun free zones (such as schools, universities, etc). It's insane to me that we refuse to protect our own kids.

2. We need better mental healthcare. Also, to echo Spectre, we need to stop letting dangerous folks out. If you're deemed too dangerous to legally buy a gun, I don't want you in my neighborhood - I want you behind bars.

1. You admit it wouldn't have worked in this case, and you also admit that these scumbags seek out gun free zones. So even if you allowed guns in schools (for example), these shooters would just pick concert halls and the like. In other words, it won't prevent mass shootings, it might (at best) change the locations. Also, this strategy is retaliation/punishment. The shooter still comes in and starts to kill people, only this time, people start shooting back, which brings us to the beginning - in crowded places this spells disaster.

2. If only mental healthcare was a right. Currently, your party is treating it like a product to which one should "have access to," but whether one can afford it or not is their own damn problem. Mass shootings prove that mental health is a public good, a necessity, and not a product that you market to those who can afford it. And this takes me back to point 1 - if a shooter truly is mentally ill, gun free/not-gun-free zones won't deter him one bit. As a reminder, this most recent shooter took his own life, so he wouldn't have feared people shooting back at him.

 

[LeVeL]

1. You admit it wouldn't have worked in this case, and you also admit that these scumbags seek out gun free zones. So even if you allowed guns in schools (for example), these shooters would just pick concert halls and the like. In other words, it won't prevent mass shootings, it might (at best) change the locations. Also, this strategy is retaliation/punishment. The shooter still comes in and starts to kill people, only this time, people start shooting back, which brings us to the beginning - in crowded places this spells disaster.

You can't wish evil people away. They exist - always have, always will. The best deterrent against them is a damn bullet.

2. If only mental healthcare was a right. Currently, your party is treating it like a product to which one should "have access to," but whether one can afford it or not is their own damn problem. Mass shootings prove that mental health is a public good, a necessity, and not a product that you market to those who can afford it.

"My party" is not only in power but is also full of internal debate. Few actually support the idea of having no government services and most agree that some level of government involvement is necessary but only as long as it's kept to a minimum. That said, even the die-hards believe that private charity would take care of the mentally ill - whether or not you agree isn't the point, but rather the point is that no one in "my party" wants to completely abandon the sick.

And for the record - no, I don't believe that you have an inherent "right" to a doctor's labor.

And this takes me back to point 1 - if a shooter truly is mentally ill, gun free/not-gun-free zones won't deter him one bit. As a reminder, this most recent shooter took his own life, so he wouldn't have feared people shooting back at him.

It's not about scaring him away - it's about fighting back to save your own skin. If a mass shooter confronts YOU, would you rather debate socioeconomic policy with him or send a piece of lead towards his central nervous system?

 

[public]

This thread:

 

[_HighVoltage_]

You can't wish evil people away. They exist - always have, always will. The best deterrent against them is a damn bullet.

"My party" is not only in power but is also full of internal debate. Few actually support the idea of having no government services and most agree that some level of government involvement is necessary but only as long as it's kept to a minimum. That said, even the die-hards believe that private charity would take care of the mentally ill - whether or not you agree isn't the point, but rather the point is that no one in "my party" wants to completely abandon the sick.

And for the record - no, I don't believe that you have an inherent "right" to a doctor's labor.

It's not about scaring him away - it's about fighting back to save your own skin. If a mass shooter confronts YOU, would you rather debate socioeconomic policy with him or send a piece of lead towards his central nervous system?

You are painting an image of a pre-modern society, the wild west so to speak, where it's every man for himself, everyone has a gun to shoot at bad guys, and you go to the doctor only if you can afford it. Survival of the fittest.

You also reveal a willingness to ignore mass shooters - bad guys exist, they always will. Oh, well...shit happens...Nothing we can do about it, except make sure more of the good guys have guns.

No, you can't "wish them away." But you can create policies that try to prevent them from acting. You are not willing to try, you see your only option as self-defense when a shooter emerges.

 

[LeVeL]

You are painting an image of a pre-modern society, the wild west so to speak, where it's every man for himself, everyone has a gun to shoot at bad guys, and you go to the doctor only if you can afford it. Survival of the fittest.

And you're painting one of Utopia where everyone is happy, friendly, and gets along great. Unfortunately that's simply not the reality.

You also reveal a willingness to ignore mass shooters - bad guys exist, they always will. Oh, well...shit happens...Nothing we can do about it, except make sure more of the good guys have guns.

That's blatantly false - just hours ago I posted two suggestions for how to deal with mass shooters.

No, you can't "wish them away." But you can create policies that try to prevent them from acting, while infringing on your rights.

FTFY. You're perfectly happy to sign away the rights of millions in order to make a weak attempt to stop a few, simply because you don't care about that particular right so it doesn't affect you personally.

Furthermore, what type of new infringement would you even propose? If the guy did in fact get his guns legally (I'm betting at least one came from a dealer who subjected him to a background check), what in the world would've stopped him?

 

[mpicco]

Gun politics thread is that way guys

My condolences to everyone affected to any degree by this, horrible.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

That's blatantly false - just hours ago I posted two suggestions for how to deal with mass shooters.

FTFY. You're perfectly happy to sign away the rights of millions in order to make a weak attempt to stop a few, simply because you don't care about that particular right so it doesn't affect you personally.

Furthermore, what type of new infringement would you even propose? If the guy did in fact get his guns legally (I'm betting at least one came from a dealer who subjected him to a background check), what in the world would've stopped him?

Your suggestions "dealt" with mass shooters, they didn't prevent them.

Don't you see the hypocrisy of your own words? You are perfectly happy to ignore the lives of a few hundred people every year, simply because you don't care about their particular right to life, because it doesn't affect you personally.

And finally, I ask again - don't turn this on me! I said earlier, for the sake of argument, I will not propose gun control and I will listen to your suggestion on how to prevent future mass shootings. You suggested two, and I pointed deep flaws in both of them. You propose better mental health - but only to those who can afford it. Private charity would take care of it? What evidence do you have that such a thing exists? Get rid of gun free zones? You admit that bad guys will still have guns, claiming that it's guns don't kill people, people kill people, but you are not suggesting how we prevent these bad people from killing, you are only offering a response to them.

Maybe I am pursuing utopia, but at least it is a vision to move forward, and not a defeatist approach of there will always be shooters and all we can do is shoot back.

 

[LeVeL]

Your suggestions "dealt" with mass shooters, they didn't prevent them.

You're asking me how to prevent a crazy person from being crazy? I think that's something shrinks have tried to figure out forever.

Don't you see the hypocrisy of your own words? You are perfectly happy to ignore the lives of a few hundred people every year, simply because you don't care about their particular right to life, because it doesn't affect you personally.

Of course I care about their right to life - that's why I suggested ways to address this issue, even though you didn't like them.

You propose better mental health - but only to those who can afford it. Private charity would take care of it?

No. I actually don't believe that private charity could take care of everything, although I acknowledge that I could be wrong.

What evidence do you have that such a thing exists? Get rid of gun free zones? You admit that bad guys will still have guns, claiming that it's guns don't kill people, people kill people, but you are not suggesting how we prevent these bad people from killing, you are only offering a response to them.

Maybe I am pursuing utopia, but at least it is a vision to move forward, and not a defeatist approach of there will always be shooters and all we can do is shoot back.

Look, anything you propose that violates my constitutional rights and makes it more difficult for me to protect my loves ones (yes, I'm selfish - my family is more important to me than yours) is a non-starter of a conversation. My rights and my loved ones' safety are things that I'm not willing to compromise on, full stop.

 

[prizrak]

To sum up the last page and a half, you guys have moved away from the incident that left 58 people dead, and instead began to debate (again) the rationalization and potential benefit of having the 2nd amendment, sometimes using outlandish examples. Let's get back on topic. Let's say, I get to agree with you that guns aren't the problem, and gun control won't work. What do you propose be done to prevent mass shootings in the future? So far only Spectre offered a solution, which was more in the lines of punishment and its prevention aspect relies on some mass shootings happening so that other shooters see the punishment and think twice whether they want to kill people or not.

Propose an workable preventative measure/policy that isn't gun control, go ahead, I'm listening.

There is no way, you cannot stop crazy, you cannot stop evil, you cannot detect it before it shows itself, you can't do shit. You can only mourn when it happens.

 

[mpicco]

This "muh rights" speech has to stop. Rights are given by people to people, and people can be wrong. Not that long ago, your rights included owning the life of another human being. Some of the people who gave you the right to bear arms enjoyed this privilege themselves. Then it was decided that it was a shitty right and was amended.

 

[JimCorrigan]

1) The armament used by this shooter was already illegal/EXTREMELY hard to come by without 5-6 figure payments since at least 1985. Like it or not, there is something to the argument that more gun control (which may still have benefits) would do little to prevent this latest shooting.

2) This goes beyond "muh rights", which implies good ol' boys who enjoy shooting cans, or animals, for fun. The purpose of the amendment was to protect against a government tyranny. Again, I brought up three examples of modern day tyranny, all in differing stages. I am not necessarily pro-gun, but I am generally libertarian and against big government (I also find the notion of a democratic vote re: separation being "unconstitutional" (re: Catalans in Spain) laughable).

What happened was evil. Gun control is a fair discussion to be had, by us at anytime, but by policymakers AFTER the dust has settled and emotions are not running high. However, any discussion needs to consider all aspects, so refuting to even consider the "pro-gun" argument is, in effect, antithetical to a rational discussion.

 

[mpicco]

Give me one example in modern world history where armed populace/gun owners stopped a tyrannical coup and I will see your point. Till then, it's pure rationalization.

 

[prizrak]

Give me one example in modern world history where armed populace/gun owners stopped a tyrannical coup and I will see your point. Till then, it's pure rationalization.

Arab spring
:micdrop: