BoatShoes;1874626 wrote:And for some reason people act like gun suicides aren't a ducking total waste for a country. I have had 3 guys I knew in high school blow their brains out.

I don't think anyone believes suicides aren't a horrible shame and a waste. I'm not in the camp that believes people who want to kill themselves won't do it just because you took their gun away.

BoatShoes;1874608 wrote:And yet it works every where but America. You want to be against prohibition of firearms (and,yes the horse left the barn i America) but for some reason completely mentally sane retired accountants DONT MOW DOWN 500 PEOPLE WITH FIREARMS ANYWHERE ELSE ON PLANET EARTH.

It happens. It happens in countries whose laws appear to make it difficult to near-impossible. Your statement doesn't match up to the facts. That he set some sort of sick body count records doesn't matter. In fact, measuring death rates per X population for mass shootings, the U.S. is nowhere close to the top of the list.

Recent mass shootings in:
Belgium
France
Norway
Germany
Mexico
Canada

just to name a few.

Suicide stats do skew the numbers bc it is self inflicted, not a crime against someone else.

Also, I guess aimed at boatshoes, who is going to be taking these guns? I'd like to see the stats but I'd guess well over 50% of the military is right leaning. Why would they side with a government who wanted to take the citizens guns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you learn how to use the fucking multi-quote feature?

BoatShoes;1874621 wrote:It only took two nukes to turn the empire of Japan infamous for the Brutal Rape of Nanking to bend to the will of the more powerful state actors and the country was an economic powerhouse within a few decades.

The warrior culture of the Japanese could not save them. Our guns wouldn't save us.

So a tyrannical government is going to drop a couple nukes on their own country and somehow you think this is going to accomplish much for the tyrannical regime? LOL, please think that one through.

BoatShoes;1874620 wrote:All the AR-15's in the world ain't stopping a true despot that gives zero fucks about slaughtering innocents.

Maybe not, but he/she isn't going to accomplish much other than destroying the entire country and having no real power.

BoatShoes;1874623 wrote:The gun confiscation was just a tree in the gigantic forest of farking revolution that confiscated EVERYTHING!

Uhh confiscation makes it easier to confiscate EVERYTHING. Cuba is just one example of gun confiscation gone wrong. Gun crime increased in Venezuela after they were banned, and as a bonus now their leader is arming his supporters. Your "it works in every country" logic is short sighted at best, considering millions have died from it. Not to mention you casually ignore the countries that have fairly liberal gun laws like Switzerland and it has worked out well for them. As always it comes down to the people.

BoatShoes;1874626 wrote:And for some reason people act like gun suicides aren't a ducking total waste for a country. I have had 3 guys I knew in high school blow their brains out.

What would stop them from killing themselves another way? It's horrible regardless.

BoatShoes;1874621 wrote:It only took two nukes to turn the empire of Japan infamous for the Brutal Rape of Nanking to bend to the will of the more powerful state actors and the country was an economic powerhouse within a few decades.

The warrior culture of the Japanese could not save them. Our guns wouldn't save us.

It was not just two nukes. More were on the way. Japan faced the total and complete annihilation of its people and they knew it. No nation is going to nuke itself ever.

BoatShoes;1874608 wrote:And yet it works every where but America. You want to be against prohibition of firearms (and,yes the horse left the barn i America) but for some reason completely mentally sane retired accountants DONT MOW DOWN 500 PEOPLE WITH FIREARMS ANYWHERE ELSE ON PLANET EARTH.

Do you think the legal acquisition of guns was gave him the impulse to do this?

Moreover, I'd wager that you and I would agree that if a person has committed to killing as many people as fucking possible before eating a gun himself, he's going to give -7 fucks about how to acquire said firearms.

"Aw, shucks. I was gonna mow through 500 people today, but the gun laws are keeping me from getting the guns I need to do it from the local gun shop. Guess I'll just watch Law & Order tonight."

We obviously know that isn't happening. And in the event that we're thinking it would make it notably harder, I'd offer two points of thought:

First, if someone has gotten to the point where they're emotionally and mentally ready to carry this out, I don't think they're going to be discouraged because getting legal guns is "just too much work."

Second, If I handed you $20K and told you you had one week to stockpile a small arsenal with that money or you owed me $100,000 ... you could do it, and it wouldn't turn out to be that hard.

I agree with you that it's odd the frequency with which we see this sort of violence in the US, but it seems like the intention to do so is more frequent, which obviously begins before someone ever fires a shot and would certainly provoke someone to get guns in the first place.

BoatShoes;1874620 wrote:All the AR-15's in the world ain't stopping a true despot that gives zero fucks about slaughtering innocents.

What about an M4?

like_that;1874631 wrote:What would stop them from killing themselves another way? It's horrible regardless.

Exactly. It isn't as though someone who has decided to end their life is going to care about the penalty for acquiring a firearm from some dude down the street.

majorspark;1874641 wrote:No nation is going to nuke itself ever.

gut;1874610 wrote:If you include suicides, which comprise the majority of gun deaths, sure.

Otherwise, I believe the surge in gun-related homicides began to take off in the 1960's. I don't know why that is, seems the leading theory is the rise of gangs and drugs. But simply blaming homicide rates on gun ownership might be intellectually lazy.

gosh of course you include suicides when guns are the favorite and most successful method.
Gosh Canada has a heterogeneous population, gangs, drugs but no 2nd Amendment or any where near a high death rate from guns even though they have a lot of them.

justincredible;1874604 wrote:You're free to post in this thread, full of differing opinions, because this is the correct forum for it.

gosh, so on the Serious Business forum is only for approved opinions.

isadore;1874647 wrote:gosh, so on the Serious Business forum is only for approved opinions.

It's not for politics. Climb down off your cross. Nobody is crucifying you. You don't get to play martyr.

O-Trap;1874649 wrote:It's not for politics. Climb down off your cross. Nobody is crucifying you. You don't get to play martyr.

bullshit, the thread was loaded with political opinion, just one was not allowed, criticism of the negative effect of the 2nd Amendment and a call for real limitation on gun ownership

O-Trap;1874644 wrote:

Even a nut job of Kim's order has enough sane people around him to dump his beer on his head if ordered to nuke his own nation.

isadore;1874651 wrote:bullshit, the thread was loaded with political opinion, just one was not allowed, criticism of the negative effect of the 2nd Amendment and a call for real limitation on gun ownership

Are the rest of these political opinions in question still up? If so, I'm happy to go have a look.

I'm only telling you the rule.

Otherwise, the answer has otherwise not changed. No matter how much you're trying to play victim, nobody's out to get you. You're just going to have to articulate your case based on its own merit.

majorspark;1874652 wrote:Even a nut job of Kim's order has enough sane people around him to dump his beer on his head if ordered to nuke his own nation.

I know. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek.

It would seem, however, that there are plenty of people who aren't so sure. Consider this: IF they were to engage in nuclear combat with the US, the US would respond in kind. In effect, engaging in nuclear combat with the US is really not functionally different than doing so against your own people. The result is the same (your country probably gets bombed to hell). And yet, there have been a fair number of people who have expressed concern that they don't believe he's rational enough to see the folly in going to war with the US.

I see too little distinction between him dropping bombs on his own country and him ensuring that someone else drops bombs on his own country. It would seem to me that if the conditions would allow for one, they'd allow for both.

O-Trap;1874653 wrote:Are the rest of these political opinions in question still up? If so, I'm happy to go have a look.

I'm only telling you the rule.

Otherwise, the answer has otherwise not changed. No matter how much you're trying to play victim, nobody's out to get you. You're just going to have to articulate your case based on its own merit.

The rule is applied arbitrarily to those holding certain but not all opinion.

I see BS has gone full retard. Never go full retard.

isadore;1874655 wrote:The rule is applied arbitrarily to those holding certain but not all opinion.

You didn't answer whether or not the other posts were still up.

Where is it being arbitrarily applied?

BoatShoes;1874609 wrote:We don't need to outlaw cars. Heavy regulation and licensing schemes have been effective at reducing duis

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

Per the nhtsa 28 people die every day in alcohol related crashes. That might be reduced but it's hardly acceptable.

I don't know how representative the posters on this site are for the population in general. I just think it is reasonable to come away from something like this with an open mind about at least exploring ways to change our gun culture. Maybe it can't be done. Maybe guns are so deeply apart of our identity that a rational discussion isn't likely. But no one can seem to answer the question of why we seem to be the only developed country that regularly hosts these massacres. I don't know if our passion about firearms and easily acquiring them explains it, but it certainly makes it easier for something like this to take shape.

It's the principle of ing - people should not have to fear this happening as often as it does.

queencitybuckeye;1874628 wrote:It happens. It happens in countries whose laws appear to make it difficult to near-impossible. Your statement doesn't match up to the facts. That he set some sort of sick body count records doesn't matter. In fact, measuring death rates per X population for mass shootings, the U.S. is nowhere close to the top of the list.

Recent mass shootings in:
Belgium
France
Norway
Germany
Mexico
Canada

just to name a few.

There have been more mass shootings in the United States per the FBI definition in the last month than in all,of those countries combined. Indeed there are more mass shootings in the United States than any other,country in the world. In this case it was done by the fabled law abiding gun owner who was neither mentally ill by clinical standards nor a religious terrorist, etc.

You think it is worth accepting in America that a people are mowed down by guns more than anywhere else that is fine but I continue to baffled that people cannot accept reality!

You can accept reality and still make a case for why guns shouldn't be banned.

FatHobbit;1874674 wrote:https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

Per the nhtsa 28 people die every day in alcohol related crashes. That might be reduced but it's hardly acceptable.

I agree that is unacceptable but we live in a world where we choose to balance safety and liberty. Americans will not accept breathalyzerss in all cars that would reduce that figure for example and so we take the reduced number of deaths under the current regime as better than the alternative.

The differencs is that drivers and the car industry don't fight every attempt at trying to,improve public safety as an unjust and gross violation of fundamental liberty.

Concealed carry licensees are basically the most regulated gun owners and they commit less crime than cops. Licensing and regulation will not stop all mass shootings, suicides or gun deaths just like our regulation of transportation doesn't stop all drunk driving deaths but imho the burdens on firearm rights will not be undue burdens.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1874675 wrote:I don't know how representative the posters on this site are for the population in general. I just think it is reasonable to come away from something like this with an open mind about at least exploring ways to change our gun culture. Maybe it can't be done. Maybe guns are so deeply apart of our identity that a rational discussion isn't likely. But no one can seem to answer the question of why we seem to be the only developed country that regularly hosts these massacres. I don't know if our passion about firearms and easily acquiring them explains it, but it certainly makes it easier for something like this to take shape.

It's the principle of ing - people should not have to fear this happening as often as it does.

On Cue somebody will say "You're,more likely to die in the bath tub! Your fear that you might get mowed down at the mall, at work, a movie or a concert is irrational!"

jmog;1874660 wrote:I see BS has gone full retard. Never go full retard.

Your material needs an update.

BoatShoes;1874677 wrote:In this case it was done by the fabled law abiding gun owner who was neither mentally ill by clinical standards nor a religious terrorist, etc.

Way too early to make any of those assumptions, particularly the "law abiding owner" part (I put the probability at 90-98% that he committed multiple felonies weeks prior to checking into the hotel). Let's let the bodies get cold first, Hillary.

You think it is worth accepting in America that a people are mowed down by guns more than anywhere else that is fine but I continue to baffled that people cannot accept reality!

You have a hard enough time articulating what you think, I said nothing that would lead one to that conclusion. If you want to go there, do it yourself.

You can accept reality and still make a case for why guns shouldn't be banned.

That case never changes. 1. Humans have a natural right to self-defense. 2. A majority decision does not alter fact 1, nor does a tragedy like what happened in Las Vegas.

O-Trap;1874673 wrote:You didn't answer whether or not the other posts were still up.

Where is it being arbitrarily applied?

Here are a few of several off that thread that were allowed because they represent "acceptable" political opinions . Names not used to protect the guilty.
“But I don't think new or even the existing gun control laws are going to help. Crazy people are going to do what crazy people do.”
“There's too many guns for any ban or regulation to be effective at this point. The problem is our country decided decades ago we don't want to pay for mental health anymore. Maybe we'll see the light. It won't just help gun violence, but drug epidemic too.”
“It's like everything that ends up in some sort of "mass violence" has to be labeled as "terrorism." And, it has to be labeled that immediately.”
“IMHO this simply a matter of hysterical left-wing whataboutism. Rather than focus on the tragedy at hand. Elements of the left want to play gotcha with those on the right who they perceive as demanding everything involving a Muslim mass shooter be referred to as terrorism vs. the claim that the right appeals to "lone wolves" or "mental health" when the shooter is white. A good example,might have been constant complaints from the right that Obama referred to the fort hood shooting as workplace violence or would say "act of terror" vs. "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Frankly IMHO the whole semantic dispute is pretty much public discourse at its very worst.”
“BS and I hardly agree on political discussions, but he is right here. Both sides are caught up in labels. My personal opinion is the left is far worse at it, but both sides do it.”
“To me, "say the white shooter is a terrorist!" crowd is the left-wing version of the "say the minority shooter committed a hate crime!" crowd. People generally just adding white noise to the narrative, although it does get sort of funny when a person who decries one of those incidents of labeling is in favor of the other.”
All acts of violence denote an element to one degree or another of terrorism. "Terrorism" in the current public discourse involves some sort of political or other ideological motive. Which I think is a fair judgment. The problem is politicians have corrupted an otherwise wise assessment of these acts of violence for their own political gain. Rest assured politicians have been working hard all day how to "handle" the facts as they become available to the public with this current atrocity in a manner favorable to themselves.