Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Seems to me the common denominator here is that there was a gun.

There was one law that wasn't broken. The dad, who gave the gun, purchased it legally. So what if he wasn't able to do that?

At their best, guns are used for:

Hunting: We don't technically NEED to do this anymore. My family are hunters and I love wild meat. If you can't hit it with a one-shot rifle or an arrow, go to the supermarket, you suck anyways.

Hitting inanimate objects: While enjoyable, the right to shoot a target when compared to the crazy amount of tragedies that have happened, I just don't see how this argument can hold up at all. You want the right to walk around with a gun on your hip, someone else has the right to feel safe that not every scond person has a gun on their hip. Rights are only protected insofar as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If you have a gun in any place that's not a gun range or wilderness (ie a community with people), I don't feel safe around you.

At their worst (and most frequent) guns are used for:

Murder.

How is this even an argument anymore?

Even the old standby dopey American excuse that the government is taking away guns so they can steamroll over their people is pointless. Does anyone really believe that these gun people could defend themselves against the US military if they really wanted to streamroll them with their guns?

[Hemi-Cuda]

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...ere-this-36131

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Even the old standby dopey American excuse that the government is taking away guns so they can steamroll over their people is pointless. Does anyone really believe that these gun people could defend themselves against the US military if they really wanted to streamroll them with their guns?

Are you suggesting that a right developed at a time when a cannon was their equivalent to a nuclear bomb might not be effective or relevant in a time where drones can just wipe out villages?

Look, if you're not going to keep this logical, we might as well just shut it down.

[edslunch]

all this gun discussion is well and good but misses a key question. What makes people decide, with alarming frequency in U.S. particularly, that killing a bunch of innocent people is a good way to address their grievances against women, blacks, employers, etc.?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by edslunch

all this gun discussion is well and good but misses a key question. What makes people decide, with alarming frequency in U.S. particularly, that killing a bunch of innocent people is a good way to address their grievances against women, blacks, employers, etc.?

I'd guess that people in all countries have similar impulses, they just don't have easy access to the weapons needed to do it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by edslunch

all this gun discussion is well and good but misses a key question. What makes people decide, with alarming frequency in U.S. particularly, that killing a bunch of innocent people is a good way to address their grievances against women, blacks, employers, etc.?

Guns

[Coach]

Originally Posted by edslunch

all this gun discussion is well and good but misses a key question. What makes people decide, with alarming frequency in U.S. particularly, that killing a bunch of innocent people is a good way to address their grievances against women, blacks, employers, etc.?

All cultures have people with those tendencies. Their access to a mass murdering weapon however is quite variable.

People murder people.

People with a gun can murder more people in a much quicker and easier manner than people without guns.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Jon Stewart nailed it tonight.
http://gawker.com/somber-jon-stewart...-ch-1712464655

David D. ‏@DavidDTSS 5h5 hours ago
Black person: "man racism is ending black lives"
Society: "you...sure...?"
Jon Stewart: "racism is ending black lives"
Society: "PREACH!"

Not Jon's fault but sadly true.

[nik-]

haha, from that article

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by MattyC

At their worst (and most frequent) guns are used for:

Murder.

How is this even an argument anymore?

It's still an argument because the people who wish to ban them can't use logic in the argument. Your assertion that guns are used for murder more than anything else shows that.

You could probably get the majority of people on board with background checks, prohibitions for convicted criminals and some kind of licensing. But whenever these things are brought up, they are accompanied by other things that make zero sense in reality like mag restrictions and banning based on looks. That's why you get push back.

People have no problem calling for a gun ban because it might not affect them. But there is no call for a ban on knives, the use of physical force or cars. Why? Because more people use them and they wouldn't want to be inconvenienced. It's much easier to demand something be banned outright when it doesn't affect you.

[Quincy Egg]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

NRA wingnuts can cry all they want. Gun bans work.

Tell that to Chicago or New York.

[calf]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

Tell that to Chicago or New York.

Or Canada. It's not an effective ban if, to obtain a gun you can just mosey one town or state over and purchase one legally.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It's still an argument because the people who wish to ban them can't use logic in the argument. Your assertion that guns are used for murder more than anything else shows that.

You could probably get the majority of people on board with background checks, prohibitions for convicted criminals and some kind of licensing. But whenever these things are brought up, they are accompanied by other things that make zero sense in reality like mag restrictions and banning based on looks. That's why you get push back.

People have no problem calling for a gun ban because it might not affect them. But there is no call for a ban on knives, the use of physical force or cars. Why? Because more people use them and they wouldn't want to be inconvenienced. It's much easier to demand something be banned outright when it doesn't affect you.

Oh yes, the age old gun supporter argument that other things can kill people too. Yeah sure, but those things have other primary purposes. A knife is a tool with a lot of other purposes than stabbing people. I need a knife to make dinner or cut open a box. The use case for a car is obvious.

What's the primary purpose of a gun? To kill or practice killing. There is nothing else you are going to do with it. It's a tool explicitly designed for killing. So enough with bringing up other items, there is no comparison.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

Tell that to Chicago or New York.

I like how out of the 7 or 8 posts directed in reply to you since your last post you chose that one to respond to.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Igottago

What's the primary purpose of a gun? To kill or practice killing. There is nothing else you are going to do with it. It's a tool explicitly designed for killing. So enough with bringing up other items, there is no comparison.

You know one thing I can't believe isn't banned on a global level is mounted machine guns and turrets. Those things are designed to kill en masse, haven proven to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people since WWI and no one has called for a complete ban on them like nuclear weapons. At least not any that I'm aware of.

[Quincy Egg]

Originally Posted by calf

Or Canada. It's not an effective ban if, to obtain a gun you can just mosey one town or state over and purchase one legally.

If you remove homicides from gangs, America is at the same level as Belgium as far as gun related homicides are concerned.

America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It's still an argument because the people who wish to ban them can't use logic in the argument. Your assertion that guns are used for murder more than anything else shows that.

You could probably get the majority of people on board with background checks, prohibitions for convicted criminals and some kind of licensing. But whenever these things are brought up, they are accompanied by other things that make zero sense in reality like mag restrictions and banning based on looks. That's why you get push back.

People have no problem calling for a gun ban because it might not affect them. But there is no call for a ban on knives, the use of physical force or cars. Why? Because more people use them and they wouldn't want to be inconvenienced. It's much easier to demand something be banned outright when it doesn't affect you.

Did you read the rest of my post where I explained how my family hunts and I love wild meat (hardly ever have to buy red meat from a store). Having no guns would certainly effect me personally.

But I have to ask, how is calling for a gun ban "because it doesn't inconvenience me" any different than a gun supporter crying about it because it inconveniences them? Or because "Ok well THAT guy shot a bunch a people, doesn't mean I will!"

As for your ban on knives and other (potential) melee weapons, I'll say what I've said before (which is probably in this thread somewhere): Talk to me when you can throw a knife at 1200 m/s in rapid succession. How can you not see the difference here? One is a small sharp blade, and the other is a rapid-fire, high-velocity projectile.

People will still die! There's no way around it. Only the most deluded of anti-gun people would claim that murders will drop to zero with no guns. I could kill someone with a stapler if I really tried. Most people could kill someone with their bare hands. As someone much more likely to be a victim of an attack than an attacker, I'd rather face a knife, or pretty much any other weapon, than a gun.

Can I ask you what the purpose of a gun is? Not what you use it for, not what you want to do with it. What is it's innate purpose?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'd guess that people in all countries have similar impulses, they just don't have easy access to the weapons needed to do it.

A lot of European countries actually have fairly relaxed gun laws, yet you still see fewer guns per capita and fewer mass shooting events.

The U.S. seems like an odd ball country in that there seems to be a large segment of the population that not only accepts guns, but feels that it is their duty to have one or more.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are you suggesting that a right developed at a time when a cannon was their equivalent to a nuclear bomb might not be effective or relevant in a time where drones can just wipe out villages?

Look, if you're not going to keep this logical, we might as well just shut it down.

What's ridiculous is that the US founding fathers never intended the constitution to be a set of commandments that never changed, it was always intended to be a fluid document that changed with time and different societal views. That's the whole reason for amendments in the first place, so gun nuts holding onto the 2nd amendment as some biblical law that cannot be challenged is ludicrous

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Quincy Egg

If you remove homicides from gangs, America is at the same level as Belgium as far as gun related homicides are concerned.

America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.

How many of those gang homicides were using guns?

The incredible majority?