isnt that what americans want ?
guns dont kill people...
Comment has been collapsed.
Now, now...the US is a big-ass country with lots of different perspectives and local/regional cultures. Let's not lump us all together now. 😎
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly that's how your country is represented to the world.. (and how it appears to others - at least political)
Luckily not everyone in your country would rather let a million people die than restrict gun laws - but sadly those that have to decide it appear to be exactly that kind of humans...
Comment has been collapsed.
But isn't this just keeping us in an oligarchal government? I'm pretty sure that's why we haven't seen any action against gun violence in the US. Because gun manufacturing is big business and the industry lobbied congress to keep them quiet.
As John Dewey once stated, American politics is merely the shadow cast by big business. If you want to change something, change the substance not the shadow.
Also, most scientific studies found that more guns did not reduce crime. The only studies that say more guns reduces crime were funded by the NRA and ... well... I think we all know why those should not be counted as reliable sources. That would be like counting studies that declare global warming is fake and were funded by big oil companies as reliable sources of information.
Sources:
http://www.newsweek.com/nras-more-guns-less-crime-theory-debunked-new-stanford-analysis-630173
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
P.S. At the bottom of that second source, there are even more sources.
P.P.S. After a little more research, I found the study that started the whole "More guns, less crime" myth. It was a study that analyzed crime data from 1977 - 1992 and it seemed to falsely declare a correlation between reduced crime and more guns in 10 states as evidence for their theory. They largely ignored the basics of any research which is the fact that correlation does not equal causation. This reduction in crime that they observed has actually been linked upon further analysis to the landmark decision in the Roe v Wade case which legalized abortion. This is hard for many to admit, but with abortion legalized, this meant that less unwanted children were born which led to a more stabilized youth. Hence, less crime. So the study that most Americans use as an argument for more guns, was actually inherently flawed because it did not take into account the many... many factors that are present in life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe we should ban guns or restrict them to the point where it is very difficult to get one like the UK, that will surely work. Oh wait, there was just 2 shootings in the past day in London of a 17 and 16 year old and also a stabbing of a 15 year old. Banning guns will never stop people from killing eachother.
Comment has been collapsed.
just, schools in usa, just this year https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html
and you wanted to say ? maybe i misunderstood im not an english speaker
and how many died in europe in schools the same way ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I'm sure your guns would help you if your government sent your military on you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good job nobody wants to ban guns then, isn't it. Wanting an overhaul of the laws involved with the process of acquiring a gun does not magically and instantly mean that the overhaul would instantly result in all guns being banned. :U
Comment has been collapsed.
Changing the way we acquire guns won't stop shootings either. You can't predict who is going to snap and decide to kill people, it could be anyone. People that know they can't buy a gun will just get one illegally from another criminal. You will never be able to stop that. And if the person doesn't have a criminal record, the only way to stop them from acquiring a gun would be for a mental problem, but that is a very difficult thing to do because where do you draw the line on who can or can't own a gun and does everyone have to get a screening before being approved to own a firearm? That sounds like it would quickly turn into a tyranny where our right to own firearms is stripped away. A very large percent of the US is considered to have mental problems and is on drugs or would be prescribed drugs if they saw a doctor because big pharma is greedy and doesn't care about the welfare of people, they just want to diagnose as many people as possible and get them hooked on a drug which will cause them more problems.
Also, a federal registration of all firearms will not happen because everytime this has happened in other countries throughout history, it was eventually followed with confiscation. They already tried this in NY and almost nobody complied, even the police. Out of the estimated 1 million firearms in the state that needed to be registered, only 44,000 were, that's 4%. If they try throughout the entire country, there will be a civil war.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you know this how exactly , did the USA even try, automatic and high scope rifles should only be militar period !
The civilians should have max a 6 round revolver for protection not Ak 47 level or sniper rifles level PERIOD !
This is another problem:
"A very large percent of the US is considered to have mental problems and is on drugs or would be prescribed drugs if they saw a doctor because big pharma is greedy"
"They already tried this in NY and almost nobody complied, even the police. Out of the estimated 1 million firearms in the state that needed to be registered, only 44,000 were, that's 4%. If they try throughout the entire country, there will be a civil war. "
So as a conclusion this is what the people want, so expect incidents like this from now on :( !
Comment has been collapsed.
What? You don't sound very informed on firearms or shootings. How do I know?, experience, logic, and years of research. Automatic firearms and high scoped rifles are almost never used in crimes, murders, or mass shootings in the US. Semi automatic firearms are used and that is when 1 shot is fired every time you pull the trigger. It is usually handguns, but in recent years rifles have become popular, especially in the news, because school shootings have become trendy. The FBI statistics show that of all murders committed with a firearm, less than 5% are with rifles and around 88% are from handguns.
The revolver you mentioned is a semi-auto and with some practice can fire just as fast as any other handgun and be reloaded almost as fast or just as fast with a trained person. How many rounds the gun holds means nothing because you can bring as many rounds with you as you want and reload in a couple seconds, just as fast as a magazine fed gun if you practice. Revolvers don't have magazines to change, but you don't have to reload 1 bullet at a time, they have speed loaders that you load the rounds into ahead of time that hold the 6 rounds in a circle. You just open the cylinder and push a lever down which removes all the spent casings at once and then drop in the new 6 rounds from the speed loader.
Basically, the only limit to how many people you can kill with a 6 shot revolver will be based on how much ammo you can carry and if you meat any resistance. There will be no resistance in a movie theater, school, or other crowded gun free zone or more accurately named "free kill zone" and that is why they are the target of choice for the mass murderers.
The firearm does not matter though. You could ban firearms off the face of the earth or maybe they were never invented. People will use other tools to kill eachother. In countries that don't have easy access to firearms, they stab eachother, even mass murder with knives is not uncommon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you are right I am not informed on firearms because in my country is next to impossible to have one!
The psychological trials will rival your academy of police one or even harder !
Well if you give him 6 shots max it will incapacitated him for more and will dealt faster also the range of that revolver is not that much !
But thanks for the information :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you will have to reload every 6 shots, but most places where mass shootings have been happening are in gun free zones and nobody tries to do anything. The people cause a panic or hide in a corner while the shooter can take all the time he wants, nobody tries to stop him. The police usually take way too long to respond and when they get there, they tend to not go in and stop him, but are ordered to wait outside the building for some reason.
Yes, a rifle shoots at a higher velocity and can more accurately shoot at a farther distance. With a handgun you have to aim fairly high to shoot at a far distance and it is very hard to aim at long range, but almost all recent mass shootings are at close range in buildings like movie theaters or schools, so long range shots would not be needed. Although, if you were shooting into a crowd, you could easily hit people at 100 yards with just about every shot with a handgun.
The distance of the Vegas shooting was not normal and I have not heard of another shooting at that distance. I think it was around 300-400 yards. A handgun would not have been effective in that scenario, but if he had a handgun, he wouldn't have chose that spot, he would have walked into the crowd and just started shooting at point blank while everyone panicked and ran in confusion. There are so many people packed together that they probably wouldn't know where to go and would run away from the shooter instead of attacking him because they have no weapon. This would allow him to shoot and reload as much as he wanted until armed security or police showed up.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are martial arts that can in some ways minimize the damage of a revolver !
But as you said people are scared so giving the guns will only increase the number of mental gun users because in that moment those are not disciplined enough to use the gun and will only increase the risk.
So for me giving every one guns is not the solution but giving them knowledge to protected them self fron guns is :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
"So as a conclusion this is what the people want, so expect incidents like this from now on :("
Pretty much, yes. I don't think firearms will be banned anytime soon in the US. There are too many people willing to die to protect the rights that tens of thousands of people died fighting to protect in the past. Firearms and freedom of speech are the two main backbones of our country that protect us from tyranny and if they are lost, that is exactly what will happen. The globalists that are taking control of our government are slowly trying to take both.
Comment has been collapsed.
Firearms can not agree but hey I am not an USA citizen and don't really want to be Freedom of speech is another subject that I would die for it!
I prefer the Asian style protection, learn a martial arts they were invented for war in India 7k+ years ago and now are for protection, that also includes discipline something that buying a gun like candy does not !
Again thanks for the information :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
We don't need to guarantee a complete stop to shootings to consider measures that will lessen the availability of highly efficient weaponry to higher risk individuals. Just because you want a gun doesn't mean you have infinite willpower or know people with unsecured firearms (or willing to just hand you one). It's not just the mentally ill that commit murder. Crimes of passion are a thing, and when unable to violently lash out with some degree of immediacy, people can actually calm down and regain their composure.
Suggesting that anybody truly determined to commit a crime will find a way is adequate reason not to ensure proper restrictions and monitoring are in place is... IMO pretty absurd. If you'll excuse my argument from absurdity as an example, by the same token we cannot guarantee which government is hiddenly corrupt enough to launch a first nuclear strike, therefore attempting to ensure warhead production and storage laws are kept up to date and revised as needed is pointless. It is not 'tyranny' to restrict access to weaponry that is designed to inflict grievous wounds with minimal effort and physical requirement, especially to those who are at risk of violent episodes or prone to exaggerated emotional response. Saying that a very large percent of the US is considered to have mental problems is not an argument against my point, but rather one FOR it. The talking point of america treating public healthcare as a business may have a relation to the current subject but you have only brought it up as a non-sequitur. Whether or not you believe the medicine industry is attempting to induce addiction in the populace to generate profits is irrelevant, only the general mental and emotional stability of its populace is. Even outside of america, human beings are emotional creatures, and firearms are designed to be highly efficient while also having the side effect of offering a disconnect between your physical actions and the degree of violence enacted.
It doesn't matter what degree of the firearms were registered, it doesn't mean they're attempting to ban all guns. If they should be confiscated then that should be more telling of the NEED for proper moderation, not an argument against why the moderation shouldn't take place because people would get pissy that they'd be held accountable. If it is viable to say that we shouldn't take a clearer stance on lethal weapons because the vast majority are not registered and would cause mass discontent, then doesn't this suggest that any crime that is not suitably moderated should simply be ignored and allowed to continue? I find it strange how popular this sentiment is, especially when placed alongside each individuals other values (such as strong feelings against illegal immigration, being staunchly anti-piracy, pro-establishment, pro-police state, etc). I simply cannot parse why people simply shrug and give an effective "Its a difficult situation and people don't like being told what to do, therefore we should just leave the current firearm situation unaddressed".
Comment has been collapsed.
Well.... I don't normally like getting political about stuff, but I felt the Onion actually had a really great comedic article title about this very issue a while back. Here it is:
Onion Article
I know the Onion is a joke site, but I just thought this was sadly funny since it was actually kind of true.
Comment has been collapsed.
if some1 wants to kill somebody they will... via gun, knife, hammer, car, screwdriver, saw, toaster, rolling pin, steal pipe, cast iron pot, rock, stick, bat, wrench, pencil, pen, ect.
Comment has been collapsed.
A hammer sure has the same killing power of an automatic gun ... yeaaaa :D!
Comment has been collapsed.
A hammer to the head means you dead no matter what... A bullet ? There's a chance you might survive or just escape with a small scratch to show off to friends in a few years.... So yeah. Automatic gun has less killing power.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah... mass murder in the cinema with a hammer? Don't think so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mass murder in the cinema with a hammer would be way easier as you wont hear people getting slaughtered in the back as the hammer makes less sound and the loud sound of the 3D/Imax movies will just make it none existent, if done right a large sum of people would be dead before anyone could react. While if someone shoots a gun, everyone would start running and most likely the gunner might get crushed by a crowed.
LOGICZ SON
Comment has been collapsed.
That's literally the worst type of logic you can find in people, also known as American logic. How many times have you heard of mass murders in cinemas with hammers, screwdrivers or even knifes? A few times, at most. How many times have you heard of mass murders with hammers, screwdrivers or knives in schools? A few times, at most. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HEARD OF MASS MURDERS WITH GUNS IN CINEMAS OR SCHOOLS? ON ALMOST A WEEKLY BASIS. People kill people, yes, BUT WITHOUT GUNS IT WOULD BE A LOT HARDER TO KILL EACH OTHER. LOOK AT THE REST OF THE WORLD AMERICANS.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) I'm not American.
2) You literally heard for school shootings last month for the first time in years and you didnt even hear about one in cinemas.
Just because the media makes it look like a major issue, doesn't mean it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2015_to_present
Your point is?
(Just because people didn't die, it doesn't mean it isn't an issue)
Comment has been collapsed.
My point is "2015"
And just because people didn't die to a hammer or a sword or a knife or acid attack doesnt mean it's not an issue... Oh wait... They did die... Oh wait... Cold weapon death ration is higher than guns... ban kitchen knives?
Comment has been collapsed.
You are beyond stupid, which actually hurts. This will be my last reply since trying to argue with someone that is so ridiculously stupid is impossible.
GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM. Now, let me explain to you why, and perhaps you might understand something and it will finally open your dumb dimwitted eyes. Almost all of the incidents that were mentioned in that link above would not be possible if guns were not widely available. "Oh, but a kitchen knife could do the same thing". No, you idiot, it couldn't. Aiming and shooting a gun at someone takes all of 2-3 seconds, time that is beyond insufficient to react in any way or to protect yourself. Almost, most of the time if the gun shot is aimed properly you die instantly. Now, tell me how me attacking a fully developed adult (because staff in schools die too) with a knife is the same as a gun. Can I go on a shooting spree and kill people from a distance with knives without adequate training? Fuck no. However, any idiot who can hold a gun can kill someone within seconds having never held a gun in their hands in their lives. ALSO, what idiotic people like you cannot get through their head is that trying to kill someone with a gun and trying to kill someone with household weapons are two very different things. No person (even those mentally disabled = 1/5 of the population of America) would ever attempt the murder sprees that happen in America so often. Killing with a gun is easy either way you look at it, but weapons such as knives take actual skill and knowledge of where to aim it, NOT TO MENTION actual strength to use them.
TL;DR: You've tilted me, like really fucking tilted me with your stupidity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember. This is kapy you are talking to.
Having a battle of wits with him is going up against a person who has never been armed a day in his life.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't usually lose my shit when discussing any topic with pretty much anyone, but this guy is incredibly dumb, beyond reasonable measures. How can you compare the power of a knife and a gun and tell me they're the same thing? Just how the fuck
Comment has been collapsed.
How to be stupid : Disagree with a brain washed liberal.
Aiming need skill. I get bet that 90% of the US will need at least 50 seconds to aim to pretty much hit the sky. "2-3 seconds"... While stabbing with a knife takes a moment and literally no skill...
TL;DR dont call someone who has used a military sniper rifle, never touched a gun. My father was military in his youth as well. You need skill/talen to use a gun, you need nothing to use a cold weapon. Tilted clown.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll take BHTrellis' advice and leave you to it. You've honestly just proved to me that beside being an idiot you are also a complete liar. Military experience? Get out of here. 50 seconds to aim a pistol? All it takes it a split second and then the person on the receiving end is dead. Enjoy your ignorance, and please do not reply anymore. This conversation is over.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sounds like his 'military experience' is thousands of hours in Call of Duty games.
I'll believe his father was in the military, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will give you a hammer and believe me you will break a arm or some bone but you will not get out in one piece !
Comment has been collapsed.
If I smack you in the face with a hammer, I wouldn't need to break your arms or legs. You'll be game over on the spot, trust me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Trust me I have martial arts knowledge to defend against tools such as swords ... your hammers means nil to me!
You will never hit my head , I would just sacrifice an arm at worst and next you are down :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because you're 12, I'll tell you a secret. If I smack your arm and I break it, you'll be busy crying on the ground instead of using your "martial arts". But your words are just proof that you got no idea what pain is, so take out that silver spoon, of your mouth. Stop watching movies and video games and get back to reality. No matter where I smack you with a hammer, you're going down on the ground in huge pain. If it's the head, it's just game over.
Why am I even bothering to argue with such people...
Comment has been collapsed.
WOW now I am 12 ... 26 is the new 12 now FFS !
I brooke my arm in 3 places and they put it back with out any drugs but hey I don't know pain!
Also that was the worst case scenario , the hammer is not a good weapon, I can just evade it and next smack your ass!
BUT WAIT YOU ARE THE GUY THAT BELIEVES A HAMMER FFS IS MORE DENGEROUS THAN A FUCKING AUTOMATIC GUN FFS !
NOOB GET THE FUCK OUT and smell the reality, you just said that military is stupid because they are using automatic rifles and not HAMMERS FFS and I am 12 on the mentality level now ... really now are you retarded or just semi ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow. This guy is a tribute to a Samuel Clemens saying.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you referring to me :V ?
Sorry I did get pissed when I saw hammer > automatic weapon :( !
And that quote is epic and so right :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeaa automatic guns are good , the people are the problem :( !
Comment has been collapsed.
I assume that's because youtube started banning and deleting gun-related channels and videos. I'm not surprised one bit about this, it was to be expected.
Things got out of hand a long time ago in America and it seems like they won't improve anytime soon, which is unfortunate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but according to Fox News, Muslim extremism is the big problem with the world. Not all the crazies with guns. Just the Muslim ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think you're even remotely close to reality, sounds like it was a crazy jealous girlfriend.
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently the shooter was a hardcore vegan and animal rights activist and a youtuber and she wasn't happy with how youtube was treating her: "Aghdam alleged that the company “discriminated and filtered” her videos to reduce their number of views".
It's pretty crazy to me that she would go there to shoot up a place and then shoot herself because she was unsatisfied with youtube. She's so hardcore about animal rights and is against animal cruelty but she doesn't mind shooting at innocent people. What a twisted piece of shit.
Here's one of the sources where I read that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see, not the reason you were thinking though at all, even dumber. Clearly she was extremely unstable regardless.
Comment has been collapsed.
wasn't happy with how youtube was treating her
Youtube is mistreating content producers at a massive scale, it's no wonder that a few become crazy, out of millions
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true. Even though I'm not a youtuber myself I am quite unhappy with a lot of changes youtube made in the past few years. Their demonetization policies are kinda ridiculous too, like the one where they demonetize videos with swearing (do they still do that?).
It's a shame there's no proper alternative to youtube.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a shame there's no proper alternative to youtube.
There are actually a bunch of technically proper alternatives. They mostly just lack contents (and some eventually die from this, like vid.me). For instance, Dailymotion used to be nice (now I think they doomed themselves by targeting only big content producers and removing many features : I'm not able to upload there anymore, and comments seem to have disappeared, too :/), BitChute and Vimeo seem decent (although BitChute doesn't seem to have comments :s), Pewtube could be nice if they just bothered hiring a designer...
It's up to content providers to bother uploading to several places, and up to viewers to bother having a look at said other places. Sadly the majority of people aren't willing to change their habits because they can't grasp / won't care about the bigger picture :/
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like the website designs of any of those. I also dislike Dailymotion's video player, without going in detail it annoys me.
Pewtube is kinda dumb name and after doing some google searches about it this is what I've found:
Pewtube is a YouTube alternative operated by Anthony Mayfield with the self-proclaimed intention of being censorship-free.This appears to be just a dogwhistle, as the creator frequently supports alt-right positions and attacks leftists. Fittingly, the website is flooded with alt-right and conspiracist videos.
Also found tweets and reddit posts with people complaining that pewtube deletes videos which don't fit with their political views and agendas. Definitely not a website I'd be willing to support.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like the website designs of any of those.
Force of habit. So used to Youtube that you use it as a reference design, so obviously all others will appear inferior. It's a bit like Google: people are so used to getting results tailored to their profile even when they do bad searches that they can't accept it when other search engines who don't use their profile returns bad results that do fit their bad searches.
Although I do agree that Dailymotion really made horrible changes lately, they used to be a lot better a few years ago, I really don't understand how they could make so many wrong changes in so little time :/
Also found tweets and reddit posts with people complaining that pewtube deletes videos which don't fit with their political views and agendas
It's unfortunately the case of all platforms, as far as I know... So the best possible thing to do is make sure there are a variety of platforms around and not just one with a quasi-monopoly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Literally everything and everyone's fault but shitty gun control.
Yes, it's your fault, whoever reads this. For reasons.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have a plan for gun control that will stop people from killing eachother?
You know murder is already illegal.. right?
Comment has been collapsed.
If only it wouldn't happen in every single country around the world... oh wait, no, it's just the states where people are are stupid AND have shitloads of guns. Other countries have crazies as well but they don't allow every half-wit to get a gun.
(you know it's hard to get killed by guns if you make getting guns hard, right? And don't start shit on "whoever wants to get a gun, will get one" because only US is so up in it's ass with the rights to bear arms that it celebrates guns in one moment, then weeps for the latest victims of a school shoot-up. Rinse and repeat every 2 to 3 weeks, max.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol yeah, so that stops.. gun violence to remove all guns. Unless someone illegally gets a gun, then you're all fucked because nobody has guns.
Then a person who's ok with murder just uses something else.. a car, a knife, their hands.
All of which, fyi, kill more people than guns right now anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Come on. You think the other countries don't have people who illegally own guns? And yet this kind of things happen literally every couple of weeks now. Taking away all the guns is not the issue. The issue is making sure they don't get in the hands of nutjobs in the first place. Nobody is saying take away all the guns. Only the NRA uses that rhetoric to scare people and keep their power. A little more, no, ANY kind of control of who's getting a gun though, might be worth looking into, no?
And yes you can use your hands or a knife to kill people, but you can't take 50 people with you when you decide to kill yourself. At best you'll harm a couple. As for cars, they are dangerous, yes, that's why you have to be licensed to operate one. When gun owners have to get a license and learn how to use a gun, we'll talk.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't agree more but you know cars can kill ... yeaaa so ... !
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder what the bears think about other people having rights to their appendages?
Comment has been collapsed.
tell me more about Israel and Palestinian terror attacks with guns, tell me more about ISIS and their attacks with guns
Comment has been collapsed.
Weapons are illegal in my country and we have tens, sometimes hundreds of killings per day... Restricting guns alone is not at all enough, profound social reforms need to take place to reduce violence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
hmmmmmmmmmm
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html
you can look for statistics for whole europe, good luck
Comment has been collapsed.
Kid. In Bulgaria most people got guns. Legal or illegal and the death by gun ration is pretty low, especially compared to cars and pipes/axes.
Comment has been collapsed.
That stops law-abiding gun owners and hunters, not murderers.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. Stops law abiding gun nuts from becoming gun crazed mass murderers as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. Their reply has bugger all to do with my post.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does.
Taxing a bullet to 3k doesn't cleanse a murderer of his sins nor does it stop a mental disorder..
If a bad guy is fine with murder, he can murder you.
Nothing you can do about that until we can detect crimes before they happen..
Anybody within arms distance from you can end your life with a butter knife, more painfully and savage than with a gun as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Anybody within arms distance from you can end your life with a butter knife, more painfully and savage than with a gun as well. "
The fact im still alive after more than a few such incidents tells me you have no clue at all. Goodbye!
Comment has been collapsed.
drugs are also, so if you can sell guns why not heroine and others ? and bombs etc
anti drug war isnt doing any good, so we should stop fighting drugs ? we are not winning and it cost loads of money
Comment has been collapsed.
Gun control doesn't have to stop people from killing each other, it only has to reduce the availability of devices that make grievously injuring people massively easier. :U
The "if it doesn't solve a complex situation 100% in one easy step, we shouldn't even consider it!" line of thinking should be buried along with the long-shredded "people will always find a way" regurgitive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it though? Statistically, to be sure. But otherwise, there are crazy people in all walks of life, gender, religion, country.
Comment has been collapsed.
How about not selling weapons to mentally ill people and making law which forbids metally ill people to own fire weapons? I know mentally ill people can still go on killing spree with large kitchen knife or buy weapon on black market but I don't see other way which would please both legal owners who use their weapons in shooting range and those who are against liberal fire weapons laws.
And we still don't know was it mass shooting or shooter wanted to kill only certain people.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree on better (hell, any kind of) control before the sale. If someone wants a gun so bad he/she cannot wait a few weeks to make sure they don't have prior history of mental imbalance, maybe they shouldn't get one at all?
But then there are people who are totally fine until they get depressed and blow a fuse. And then there are kids grabbing the available arsenal and killing their sister over a controller. Maybe if it had been in a safe, that wouldn't happen.
So yeah, better control. Some frame of law. Mandatory lessons for proper handling if you buy one. But that won't happen because somehow the NRA thinks it's "infringing" on people's rights to make sure they behave or are able to behave responsibly with guns. Yeah, like a driving license is infringing on our rights.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sure the founding fathers are watching all this and going "we really should have worded that amendment more carefully". Because they never thought that people would read ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and think "hell yeah, give me all the semi automatics in the land! it's my God given right!!"
A well regulated militia is the important part but that never gets mentioned somehow. We're talking about a time when most places had few laws and no law enforcement to ensure "the security" but sure, let's make the whole thing about buying guns to feel safer in an increasingly crazy world armed to the teeth.
Comment has been collapsed.
And unsurprisingly you didn't understand my point, or ignored it. My point was: I don't care why they said that at the time, I care about now, you know? The time where we both live. Not another time far far away in another galaxy. We have law enforcement. A militia is not needed anymore, let alone just any Joe or Jane, and their kids, with guns.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn ... speechless .. next are tanks anyone should have a tank ... what better protection then that :D !
Comment has been collapsed.
Now you're just posturing. As I told you before twice, I won't engage with you any longer so please, go back to your regular life. There are some people who disagree with you. Learn to live with it. I have.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are laws against it. but the registry sucks, so unless you yourself admit you've been baker acted, you'd be likely to still get the gun.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nop guns are not bad the people are ... well yeaa people are the problem so restrict them some way hmmm !
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, people with guns but whatever. We're not here to protect the people, we're here to protect the guns and the only amendment we like because it allows us to keep selling guns to everyone. This message from the NRA is absolutely not sponsored by all the weapons manufacturers who make it such a powerful group. Nope. The NRA is just a nice bunch of people who made a club to protect their God given right to bear arms, whatever that means.
Comment has been collapsed.
You put 20 people in a room with 20 guns.
You put another 20 people in a room with no guns.
Which room is more likely to end up with dead people in it?
Why is that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Out of all possible room+people+guns configurations, the most victims would be in the room with 20 people and one gun, because they couldn't defend themselves against the psycho with the gun. (Which I guess is the logic behind NRA's push for a gun in every pocket).
Instead we should focus on which room would have no casualties at all...
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just curious to see what people answer and why.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dunno, the chaos of 19 people trying to fire on the 1 person who is an active shooter would result in a hell of a lot of death and injury. Maybe one of the twenty didn't see the original gunman, but DID see the person firing at the original gunman and made and assumption, or someone firing at the gunman misses and hits someone else, etc. While a shitty situation - 19 people 1 gunman, at least you can tell fairly quickly which one is the bad guy.
Its one of the specific reasons why such ideas as a gun in every pocket is a bad idea - when the police arrive to an active shooter scene and see dozens of people waving guns around without being able to tell which one(s) are the baddies, take a guess as to what is going to happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
I vaguely remember seeing or reading something about police letting those 'good guys with guns' test their skills on one of their SWAT training courses, reenacting a mass shooting and hostage situation in a school. If I recall correctly, all these wannabe vigilantes were responsible for at least shooting one of the hostages and in most cases even more than that. People fantasizing about some action movie scenario, in which they can easily one-up professionals that train for such situations for years on almost a daily basis, is.. well, baffling.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, exactly. Also since police tend to wear a roughly standard uniform, and train together and can communicate on the fly, they can coordinate an action more readily than a group of people who at best vaguely know each other.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but I swear after the Las Vegas shooting last year, one of the performers actually talked about this - he and several of his roadies had guns either on hand or nearby, but in the chaos of the moment where nobody knew where the shooter was and what was happening, them pulling out guns would just add even more chaos, and probably could have even screened the actual shooter long enough to either do more damage or escape as police reports would jump from "one active shooter" to "possibly a dozen active shooters".
Comment has been collapsed.
Uh.. what? 19 unarmed people being killed by the one bad guy with a gun is a lot of death and injury.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not saying 1 armed person firing on 19 unarmed people is good, I'm just saying that at a glance, you can tell who is the bad guy - ie: who to run from if you can. Also when the police arrive, they will see one guy with a gun firing, not 20 people firing at each other. Basically any situation where someone is shooting at someone else is a bad situation though yes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, because having room full of people where they will just start to shoot, as someone started to shoot in the first place will be so much safer.
I'd feel way more safer in room with 1 gun, as it's possible that person with gun will be incapacitated, even when it'd mean few others would get shot or wounded. And not in room where everyone has gun, so they start to shoot randomly. Not to mention getting shot and in your "fall down on the floor" moment you release burst of bullets in more or less direction of attacker.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, Tzaar said 20 people and 20 guns or 20 people and no gun. But for the sake of argument, a gun is not a bullet proof vest. For all the stories about people getting killed by a crazy lone shooter, how many armed citizens stopping crimes? I have been around guns since I was a pup. I'm not afraid of them but I'm worried when I see someone who's never once stepped on a gun range, with a gun in their hand.
I guess it's the idea tv and movies sell us. Ordinary people who become super powerful and invincible when they are armed. Maybe we should work on changing that narrative (I'm not blaming tv here or Hollywood but let's be honest, every celebrity who is going to talk tragedy and gun control in the coming days, has been in at least one movie where someone was solving a problem with a gun. It's not helping people get off this idea that guns are a solution to violence, and not a cause.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about putting one person into 20 rooms?
Gotta go, again the nurse nags me about taking my meds...
Comment has been collapsed.
You need to put 20 people and 19 knifes in one room first.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends.. what else is in the room with no guns ?
And are all people in all rooms equally mentally unstable ?
Got to account for all variables to make this a valid experiment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Both rooms will eventually have dead people in it.
As a species, we're fundamentally insane. Put more than two of us
in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up reasons to kill one
another. Why do you think we invented politics and religion?
- Ollie Weeks from "The Mist"
Comment has been collapsed.
As a species, we're fundamentally insane. Put more than two of us
in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up reasons to kill one
another. You give them guns, they do it faster.
- Tzaar from Steamgifts. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Put 20 guns in a prison and see how many people are killed. Put 20 knives in a prison and see how many people are killed. Put 20 baseball bats in a prison and see how many are killed. Put 20 bricks in a prison and see how many are killed. Put 20 metal butter knives that can be ground to a point in a prison and see how many are killed.
The number would be the same in all the cases because people kill people, the inanimate object does not kill. If someone has a reason to kill, no matter how many "killing tools" you ban, you can not stop them from killing. Just look at the statics from around the world in countries where guns are banned and look how many murders there are with knives, even mass murders.
Comment has been collapsed.
You didn't answer my question.
(Edit: to be fair, so you don't think I'm picking on you - no one did. They keep making up their own rooms)
Comment has been collapsed.
I did answer your question, the killing doesn't have to do with the weapon, it has to do with people wanting to kill. The room with 20 people and guns would probably not have anyone kill eachother if there was no reason to kill. If someone wanted to kill, then people would die. The same would happen in the room with no guns. If someone really wanted to kill one of the other people, there are many ways to do it without a firearm and it happens around the world every day.
Edit: Just look at how strict prisons are with searching everyone for any little thing that could be used to hurt someone, but they still manage to kill eachother. You don't need any weapon to kill someone.
Put 20 completely naked people in a bare room with nothing in it, will they kill eachother? If they get really angry to the point of wanting to kill, yes, they will absolutely kill eachother.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which room is more likely to end up with dead people in it?
That was the question. You can only choose one. There's no option C in this "quiz."
And yes, I agree - people can use other objects to kill people.
I'm assuming you know that, in the time it takes someone to kill a person with another object, they often have time to rethink their decision and avoid killing a person. 2500 feet per second isn't much time for second thoughts.
Comment has been collapsed.
People kill people all the time with no weapons, that extra time they had to think about it did not stop them. It only takes a few seconds to knock someone on the ground and stomp on their head or neck or grab their head and repeatedly bounce it off the ground until their head is split open. When someone wants to kill another person and they start fighting, they become full of adrenaline and their body goes into a fight or flight mode. At this time, most people are not rationally thinking things over in their head, they become enraged, they go into an animal instinct and just want to kill. That's why people do stupid things all the time and then regret it after, because they couldn't control themselves.
I think the same number of people would die in both rooms, with and without the guns, just like in a prison. The weapon of choice does not matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
People kill people all the time with no weapons, that extra time they had to think about it did not stop them.
Perhaps we never hear about the people who change their minds mid-way.
Comment has been collapsed.
That doesn't matter, there are many other ways to easily kill someone. Most people do not attack someone that they are planning to kill with there bare fists and no weapon. If that is the world you want, we will have to ban everything. If we ban guns, people will just resort to using knives like in most other countries around the world.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
While this is a topic I believe we could discuss all night (and rationally, I might add), I feel that we'd only be spending our time going in circles. Thanks for the discussion, though. At the very least, I hope the two of us can walk away with additional perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have a point- much of this is about mental health; but banning some kinds of weapons has always made sense.
We don't allow regular citizens to purchase tanks or rockets, or biological weapons etc...
I love guns myself, learned to shoot when I was 11 years old but many people do not have the same amount of respect for human life as I and with easy access to guns they are making it bad for everyone. We need better screening on gun purchases and we need better mental health as well as a culture shift that does not glorify violence.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the US, you can buy a fully functional tank if you want and even with a cannon or full auto 50 cal machine gun if you do the right paperwork. I believe you can also own rocket launchers if you register them with the ATF as a destructive device. I'm not sure what the requirements are though, I think this is much more difficult than getting a full auto rifle. You can also buy fighter jets once the military decides they are not classified or takes the classified stuff off them that they don't want sold.
They usually have some tanks at the knob creek shoot.
Private Tank Ownership: Do You Have What it Takes?
90mm T8 Cannon Tears a hole in a hillside
Mini Gun Action at knob creek
TOP 10 Fighter Jets ANYONE can Buy and Fly
Badass Pilot Buys Own Fighter Jet
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on your state laws as well, but my point stands, these aren't regular citizens buying their guns at Wal Mart.
Biological and radiological weapons, tanks or RPG's, we all can agree these aren't weapons for the common citizen.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why they can't have them. Sounds like something a Communist would say.
Comment has been collapsed.
Biological weapons have nothing to do with what we are talking about and have no right to be in the same discussion, they are weapons of mass destruction which almost nobody has access to. I believe all biological weapons have been outlawed even for the military. I know they still study them and probably even weaponize them secretly, but they are not comparable to rifles, tanks, and RPGs at all.
And yes, these are regular citizens buying guns, maybe not at Walmart because they sell almost nothing, but at their local gun store. You can walk into a gun store and buy full auto machine guns, silencers, body armor, whatever you want. There are not many people buying tanks and fighter jets, not because they don't want to or aren't allowed to, but because they can't afford it.
Also, these weapons are legal in most of the US. Only 11 of the 50 states do not allow them. If the firearm was made before 1986, you just fill out a form, pay $200, and wait for the approval. Anything made after 1986 is illegal to own unless you are a police officer or obtain a license to sell class 3 weapons which is not given out unless you own a business selling firearms.
From an ABC article, there are 630,019 machine guns registered in the US. These are full auto firearms that are registered with the ATF. It is estimated that there are over 350 million firearms in the US. This just shows you how many law abiding citizens there are that own firearms and use them responsibly for sport, hunting, and self defense. Firearms are used much more for self defense and save more lives than they are used for murders, you just don't hear about it in the news.
Here's a video with plenty of normal citizens shooting full auto machine guns. Most of the people shooting are people that show up and pay to shoot the guns, but these are privately owned guns that belong to the regular citizens that brought them to the range and they take the guns home when they leave at the end of the day. Remember, 630 thousand of these registered in the US, it is not rare. It is actually fairly common and part of our culture and history.
These videos are not an accurate representation of gun ownership in the US though. Most people own a few firearms and use them to target shoot at a range or in the woods and then use them for hunting or self defense. These videos are of the biggest machine gun shooting event in the US which happens over the course of a few days twice a year.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure why you are posting about legality of full auto weapons? I never argued otherwise. The legality depends on the state you are in.
Do you think someone with severe mental illness should be able to purchase an RPG? Do you support laws that do not allow convicted felons access to guns? If your neighbor had a shed that was 10 feet from your house, how would you feel if he started to stockpile explosives in that shed? Should anyone be allowed to bring a gun onto a plane?
Banning all guns makes no sense and would be stupid. However, there are smart common sense gun control laws out there and they could be better implemented and perhaps even expanded.
Comment has been collapsed.
When you said "these aren't regular citizens buying their guns at Wal Mart", I disagreed with that and wanted to explain that they are legal in most places, there are many regular citizens that own them, and you can drive to your local gun shop and buy them.
Yes, I agree with all those laws and they are all already in place. I'm not sure if someone can get an RPG or not, I didn't look into it. I know pretty much all explosive are considered destructive devices and are illegal. You can get a permit that will allow you to buy, manufacture, and use explosives, but you probably have to take some courses first and have a good reason for it. This may not allow you to have explosive projectiles though. You cannot stop this because people use explosives for legitimate reasons like mining, manufacturing fireworks, building demolition.
We already have laws that prevent all those people from buying firearms, but the laws are not perfect and I don't know how we could make them better. If there is a reasonable way to make them better, I am fine with that. We even have some laws that already go too far like if you get in a fight with your spouse and one of you call the cops and someone gets charged with domestic violence, that person is never allowed to own a firearm again for the rest of their life.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's like saying if you put 20 french fries in one prison and 20 whole buffet tables of food in another, the number of sustainable people is the same. The efficiency of killing many victims in a short period of time is drastically higher with a firearm than with a butter knife or with bare hands. Range, physical requirements, how readily people can resist or escape, how easy it is to remain concealed (or remain undetected yourself), margin for emotional detachment. All these just off the top of my head. We cannot stop people from freaking out and attempting to kill people, but we can however make it so that the number of fatalities is likely to be significantly less. It's kind of why the only thing preventing the populace from owning military weapons isn't just prohibitive costs.
I mean, explosive ordinance is just an inanimate object that can't kill anything on its own, without mishandling, right? No reason to tightly moderate landmines, wheee.
Had somebody made the argument that creating tighter gun control laws would completely halt all gun related deaths, then you may have had a point, but you (just like most opponents tend to do) were sidestepping with long buried rhetoric. A measure doesn't have to completely halt the issue in one single step, it simply has to have a positive effect. Massive false equivalence, and one that gets repeated ad nauseam. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
More dead in the room with no guns, because they couldn't defend themselves from the sadistic researchers.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the 20 in 1 room are NRA members, they'll spent hours joking about guns with 0 dead. If the other room has 10 migrants and 10 white girls... well. Half of that room wont get out alive.
Your example is stupid and illogical.
Comment has been collapsed.
You put 20 people in a room with 20 guns.
You put another 20 people in a room with no air.
Which room is more likely to end up with dead people in it?
Why is that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet add some realism to the mix
Realism is just one person's (or a group of people's) perspective on something. Your idea of realism isn't necessarily the same as the next person's.
Which is the problem with these gun control arguments, they are based on fiction and can only be true in ambiguity and biased situations.
That could just as easily be said about both sides of the "argument."
Comment has been collapsed.
4 people hurt and 1 dead. Now, I'm not making a joke here or saying this is not sad, I'm just genuinely curious - how can a person with a gun go to a crowded place and manage to only shoot 5 people? I don't know, I feel like the amount of casualties in situations like this would be much higher.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe they were targeted. Maybe it wasn't an automatic gun. Reloading is a problem. Maybe the shooter was stopped before racking up casualties. I'm sure the NRA publicists are going to spin some conspiracy theory about it so stay tuned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did I piss you off because I mentioned the NRA? I was just answering the question about how so "few" casualties with a gun. I wasn't being flippant. But yes you can bet the NRA is going to spin it into something else that will make gun owners the victims of government oppression. It's the business they're in, it's fine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Come on, man. They spin everything, like the other side does. The reason NRA membership is increasing is the exact same reason these incidents are increasing: people are scared by a politics of fear. I don't even know why I bother because calling the NRA an ethical business is just evidence your ears and eyes are closed to any argument, debate or revision of your views. And speaking of first amendment, since you're mentioning it. Your buddies at the NRA literally threatened movie theatres and distributors with blocade if they were showing the movie Mrs Sloane because they thought it was against gun rights. Come on, now. Don't pain them as saints, you're losing your credibility
Comment has been collapsed.
1.2.3.4.5 My grandfather told me not to argue with people who are not able or willing to discuss.
Have a nice life.
Comment has been collapsed.
3; Give up and start ignoring the message icon until you give up and stop harassing me?
I have a lot of points but I choose not to make them because debating a brick wall is not high on my list of priorities. But you know what? You're right. You convinced me. Guns are absolutely not dangerous and gun control is evil, and everyone who says the opposite is bent on suppressing people's rights and oppressing everyone.
I never said you were a bad person. I said you were not listening and obviously you are not since I also said three times now that I give up. I give up. You win by exhaustion. Aren't you happy? Now please, go back to your regular life and let me resume mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Situation seems to be under control, the suspect allegedly commited suicide. Rare to have a female go on a killing spree like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Women tend to internalize their depressions. Men externalize. But it's by far not a rule. Just a statistic I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, who knows, the only person able to shed some light onto what led to this can't comment any further. But I guess media will let us know what she had for breakfast the week before.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah and try to put it on the rest of the media. Not themselves, no. Because the news is totally blameless. It's not at all as if they were making a business out of scaring people and agitating lunatics.
Comment has been collapsed.
With the coverage of shootings, I am always reminded of this old Charlie Brooker bit on how media covers these types of things vs how they really should be covered. The tl;dr is basically - keep the big details local, and for national coverage keep things dull, to the point, and uninspiring. That way potential copycats don't see mass shootings as a way of getting their 15 minutes of fame.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very interesting watch, thanks. And yeah the media rarely helps in those situation (or in terrorism events). They're part of the problem, as much as they like to think of themselves as part of the solution. Real journalism is long dead unfortunately, especially in the 24 hour news era with twitter and facebook sources and competition.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, there should be more opportunities for women, it can't be men are always monopolizing it all. /irony
Comment has been collapsed.
Guns aren't the problem but certain people who have access to guns are the very problem like for example terrorists, criminals, deranged people, mentally unstable people, people without any upbringing, morality and education,...
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing to do with rights - purely to do with the urge to own a weapon, numpty!
Comment has been collapsed.
Not every gun owner is a nutjob. But yes we do need more control. To protect the right to life, even though it's not spelled out in the amendments. Oh must be in the constitution
Comment has been collapsed.
kinder eggs don't kill children, stupid kids eating plastic do.
Comment has been collapsed.
We've had them back on shelves in the States for half a year now, though only the variant which avoids violating the American safety demands that had them banned in the first place; so the only option available to us now is the one that's one half toy and one half chocolate, rather than toy-inside-the-chocolate. [>>]
I don't have the faintest idea what the legal situation regarding Kinder Eggs is down south where you seem to be (and Google isn't offering me any clarification), but us getting them back up here may be a favorable indication that you all will see them again soon, as well. :)
Edit: Kinder Egg refers to the line of egg shaped, toy-including products manufactured by Ferrero. In the past, Kinder Surprise was the only egg available, and Kinder Egg was synonymous with that product; Once Kinder Joy released, Kinder Egg came to refer to both products as a whole.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I feel that. Even the rest of the Kinder chocolates line taste completely different. I mean, it's been a long while (what with being in the States and all), but I recall the milk chocolate they use being pretty pretty standard to the sort of creamy milk chocolate you'll find in Germany (and presumably much of the rest of the EU); rather, I recall it being the milky layer they add that ends up being distinct to Kinder Surprise (and unfortunately different from the milky filling used by other Kinder products). I'm definitely not aware of any other "thin" chocolates, either.
I think what you need to do is find a collector that is only after the toys, and just split the cost of purchases with them. :'P
Personally, I'm just glad to be getting European chocolates (AKA "real chocolates") over here at all, especially now that things like Kinder Joy are to some small degree becoming standard fare for normal grocery stores (rather than being limited to import stores and organic stores alone). American food products being what they are, I don't bother with packaged sweets except when I stumble across imports, so it's been nice being able to pick some up with relative ease, of late.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somebody doesn't understand Youtube. The whole point is to shoot at home.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel like recently we have had this discussion here at least once every month, arguments fly left and right and nothing changes. It's starting to feel like routine, and that's worrisome.
From the outside it looks like the US is sinking into madness, a quite bloody madness. And then they complain when we (the rest of the world) think of them as violent people.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are more guns than people in the US and only one woman used a gun to kill people in this crime. Makes you think about the 300 million who don't go around shooting people.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is that it FEELS like routine, that's what's worrying me right now. That I've been hearing about this type of news so frequently that it's desensitizing me, it no longer feels like people dying, it feels like an statistic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't look up Chicago. It has more shootings than actual war zones.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't just feel it pretty much is at this point http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting
Most of those don't make it to the news outside of US, I guess even in US some of those might not be mentioned in all news networks. The list also includes smaller more "common" since anything with over 3 casualties is considered a "mass shooting" but even those shouldn't be as common imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
More like 100 million since the rest don't own guns, not to mention the others in that that have shot others.
Comment has been collapsed.
this shit has been routine for years honestly. recently really aint all that worse.
Our culture prides itself on freedom, and gun ownership is seen as a core, important freedom. Things aren't gonna change or get better, but they also probably won't get worse. As bad as these events are, they're not rare or intensifying, amd we've survived them all before. America isn't sinking because of this. It sunk as far as it's gonna a long time ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest I didn't use to get much exposure to it until some years ago, international news on TV never get as much exposure as local stuff (I imagine this is the same for every country) and I didn't became somewhat fluent in English until around 7 years ago so I wasn't getting exposed to it through the internet either.
So from my (definitely limited) perspective this FEELS like it's getting worse, it also feels distant and that doesn't help when it comes to think about the victims as actual people instead of numbers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Clearly, we need more gun free zone signs. Those always work. And make it harder for people to get guns. Those always work.
Comment has been collapsed.
The gun free zones should be renamed to free kill zones. That is where most of the mass murders happen because nobody is allowed to defend themselves and the shooter knows there will be nobody shooting back. Movie theaters, shopping malls, schools, concerts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Open Season Zones. Just replace the deer with sheeple.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hope the people of USA will get out of their bubble of cognitive dissonance sometime soon. I have some friends there and I don't feel comfortable reading about shootings every single week.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lots of speculation so far but nothing concrete. Doubt we will really know. There will be theories but unless she left a manifesto, which deranged shooters rarely do (and they rarely make sense when they do). Some people have theorized that it's because Youtube decided to delete all the gun videos after recent shootings. I'm sure it made some people angry but if it was a trigger (no pun here) for her, she was obviously imbalanced, not just someone pissed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reports are saying that it was a domestic situation, as the shooter was a female who went after her ex-boyfriend, the male who is currently in critical condition.
Comment has been collapsed.
And she couldn't wait for him to be at home alone to kill him? Wow. Not giving anyone any ideas but she had to be off her meds.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now reports are saying the shooter was a vegan activist who shot up the place because her channel was being filtered. Idk what to think anymore........
Comment has been collapsed.
There's going to be reports saying anything and everything. That's the business they're in. If they say what's been said before, nobody is going to care so they make up theories, look into the shooter and spin it around to keep people watching a few more days. It's pathetic really. We're at a crucial time when we would need the press to be on point more than ever, to make up for all the "social media" false facts, innuendos and rumors but they are letting us down.
She was a deranged woman with a gun. Why she did is is irrelevant the moment she injures/kills people. If she was making a statement, it probably would have been made clearer beforehand but whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vegans... I always knew there was something wrong with those people. Why can't they just part-take in the happy tasty mass slaughter of all animals!
Comment has been collapsed.
Completely unrelated to the topic, but while we're talking about guns, can I ask: Why do civilians need automatic weaponry? Like in what imaginable and plausible situation will I, as a civilian, need anything more than a semi-auto pistol? I'm genuinely curious and I kind of want some serious answers.
Comment has been collapsed.
You won't get any answer past the second amendment, unfortunately.
I'm not sure what weapon she had but the casualties are low so I don't imagine it was anything powerful. Regardless, I couldn't answer your question. Maybe if we want to overthrow the government?
Comment has been collapsed.
Automatic weapons are banned for civilian use. The media just calls everything "fully automatic" for effect because uneducated people want reasons to take away all guns from everyone. Also notice as media coverage of "gun control" increases the coverage of police brutality etc. decreases. It's not coincidental, nor is the lack of reporting on positive gun use going on in the meantime.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same reason as well where the Media likes to call the AR in AR-15 as "Assault Rifle" and no the AR in AR-15 doesn't stand for "Assault Riflfe" it stands for "ArmaLite Rifle".
Comment has been collapsed.
Grenades and Rocket launchers are also banned, but some virgins in Congress think fully semiautomatic assault rifles (wut) are equipped with them or various tacticlol attachments.
Comment has been collapsed.
Getting rid of all those gun videos on Youtube helped stop the violence. Oh wait....
Comment has been collapsed.
Gun control is actually beneficial for various reasons. Killing somebody with a melee weapon involves potential conflict and defense, makes attacker think twice what he's about to do and requires far more effort than pulling a trigger in 0.5 second. This was actually confirmed scientifically that the harder it gets to kill somebody, the more reluctant a potential attacker is, be it a murderer or a person about to commit a suicide. This is also direct reason why we don't really see random people shooting each other day and night here in Europe. There is no comparison between US and EU in this regard, the data speaks for itself. Madmans are everywhere, but a madman without an easy way to murder a lot of people in a very short time is more reluctant, if even possible, to kill somebody before getting caught.
There is no real solution to all of the issues with it, but I'd rather live in a country where obtaining gun requires serious effort, accepting the fact that I could be unarmed against a serious murderer (who wouldn't just pop up after an average citizen, mind you), rather than die like a fool just because a freaking drugged idiot grabbed his gun and started shooting everybody because he was high. Pro-guns guys will now imply that the guy could also kill others with a knive, but like I said above, scientifically he'd be far more reluctant to do it if it involved a direct battle where a victim can defend himself (and not die from getting shot immediately).
Not to mention that defending yourself is easier the more unarmed both of you are. Unless you want to argue that it's easier to kill somebody with your own fists rather than a bullet in the head. Luckily free access to nuclear weapon isn't established in the US yet, so we can enjoy living for the time being :3
Comment has been collapsed.
God created Man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Good luck defending yourself from someone three times your weight, with your fists.
Comment has been collapsed.
At home, yes. In a public place, guess not, unless you carry your gun 24/7.
Comment has been collapsed.
this is when i start to feel as a true survivor /ironic
Comment has been collapsed.
Good luck defending yourself from someone three times your weight, with your fists.
I have considerably bigger chances doing that rather than dodging a bullet in my head. Not to mention that there is also considerably bigger chance that somebody will help me out before guy punches me to death, where there is little to no chance of somebody reacting under 0.5s before guy pulls the trigger. On top of that, punching somebody to death requires far more effort and is rather rare even when somebody has intention to kill, simply because you're far more likely to drop unconscious before actually dying, and by then most of the attackers simply stop, even those with initial intention to kill once they realize what they did.
Comment has been collapsed.
Archi, consider this: if one wishes to be mass-murderer, its enough to drive a car into the crowd. It used to be quite popular in europe. No need 4 guns. I imagine that police can stop a shooter. Imagine stopping this car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kx67NnuSd0
If i follow you correctly, we should also restrict access to trucks?
Comment has been collapsed.
FFS ... this is getting retarded by the minute well you know what car accidents are top 10 cause of dead word wide so your point is ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, we do. You need a driver's license (including both a theoretic and practice exam) to (legally) operate a vehicle.
So you kinda validated his point.
Besides that, trucks are a necessity to transport goods. The only purpose guns have are either to kill, or being a luxury product (having fun with them). Apart from military and hunting use, is the 'to kill' part wanted to be in the hands of any civilian?
I like guns, and maybe one day I'll go and get one for the 'luxury' part, but I am very glad as well, I live in a country where acces to them is not so easy, and the general socioecenomic (?) situation is good enough that people don't go around being crazy much (with or without guns).
Guns are not the sole cause of gun abuse, but they are a factor in it.
Mind you, he was talking about gun control, not banning them alltogether.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly, if he didn't even have to do that, it would have been even easier to do right?
You cannot stop people from killing, but you can make it harder.
Edit: Hmm, looks like I beat the removal of the message.
Comment has been collapsed.
What Crizyz said above - driving license is exactly the type of restriction you want to see. Even if it's easy to pass, a guy who would want to mass murder people wouldn't spend all his effort getting a driving license just to kill somebody. Sure, he could do so without a license in the first place, but then it's far more likely that he'll just crash or kill himself in the process as being inexperienced, or being caught on the road, rather than succeeding.
You can't restrict everything to everybody, and of course there are such situations, but it's still far less common and still requires much more effort. Moreover, there is a pretty good chance that the person won't actually die, since you'd need quite a lot of speed, and being in the city if you're mass-murderer, which kinda contradicts each other - you're far more likely to hit another car this way rather than crash onto park with 100 km/h. And even then, it doesn't guarantee killing somebody just by definition.
Sure, not an argument at all, but you can't really compare this to 0.5s of pulling a trigger. It's just silly comparing banning guns to banning trucks, since guns have no purpose apart from being used to kill, while trucks have obvious utility purpose and they were not designed to kill in the first place.
I just see no point of having guns legal in current modern society. If you want to defend yourself then we're in 2018 and even pepper spray is much more effective against that, and unlikely to kill anybody in the process. And I'm all in for that - even if it means that I'm going to get sprayed, this won't kill me right away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Guns is not a luxury. In rural area against pests - snakes, foxes, boars. Against burglars and thieves everywhere, for people working with a stuff worth stealing. For truck driver with expensive cargo, or the lady on night shift at gas station. I agree with cowbell - God created Man. Sam Colt made them equal.
There is no need for someone, who allows or gives licenses. No, it should be my right to have a gun, ok? Same as i can buy a car and drive around my house, i need no permission. 18 year old with id - enough. If you are non-native - background check. If you have problem with my freedom I would give you right for bulletproof vest, without asking for id ;)
No dead victims in shooting, 3 or 4 wounded by the way :P as we say, storm in a glass of water.
Comment has been collapsed.
Great post but will be ignored as always because we need more guns :)) !
Comment has been collapsed.
There was another shooting a few minutes ago, as of this posting, at the YouTube HQ.
So far, there is reports of casualties but I am not sure how many yet.
This is getting WAY out of hand.
Comment has been collapsed.