Does one person really need 19 rifles?

Shit he could have still done it with one rifle. But what cause does a person have to own 19?

True.

What tactical need is there if your not in a war zone? Most Americans are fucking psychopaths and your running free with guns with an Orange running the country.

I don't need 12 guitars, but I have them because it's something I enjoy. Some people enjoy target shooting and the variety of guns. Had a family member who used to manufacture unique handmade firearms. He had hundreds and never hurt a fly. Access to guns doesn't drive people to kill. The desire to kill makes people seek guns sometimes.

Fair enough.

Just a sad reality of access to guns. For some I know, hunting is the main source of protein. Odd to think how guns, in these instances, actually perpetuate human life. Obviously life would be grand if no one killed anyone/thing, but I don't think taking guns away will do anything to solve the larger issue; some people are more prone to violence than others. We can only control our own actions, and some lack the capability to do even that

How many people have been killed with a guitar?

Yeah...that's the reason we can't play in Milwaukee anymore...

Well, he was fairly wealthy wasn't he?

Most of my weapons are historical and Conversation pieces, I won't disclose the amount of weapons I have but I believe I should be able to marvel at these and have as many on my wall as I'd like. Most people (that I know I.e. anectodal support) never have even shot 75% of what they own just due to the historical value or the enjoyment of having "the best". None the less this guy (or guys)was gearing up. Seems wierd to me that this one guy would have 19 weapons ready to go just for him. Like did he really expect to be in the room discharging over 1000 rounds by himself? If we wanna take it that direction it seems as though he was a fall guy.

Don't fall for it, red herring.

This isn't an argument about our right to sporting rifles, it's a argument against our right to defend ourselves against tyranny and anything else that may want to harm us.

You realize this is the 21st century, right? Maybe that argument was logical 150 years ago, but it's been awhile.

It's still 100% relevant.

Go waste your effort somewhere else, shill.

Uh. I don't disagree with you at all. I just don't think it's a good argument for 2017.

You just contradicted yourself.

I think gun ownership is fine, but it's disingenuous and even comical to argue that they could be used to defend against a tyrannical government in the modern era. If you want to get people on your side, come up with a believable and palatable argument.

Weapons are used to hurt other things, people exercise good judgement to decide what those things are. It's that simple.

What "believable and palatable" lie should we make up as an excuse instead? You're whole way of thinking is entirely dubious.

It's a constitutional right, just leave it at that. The stuff about tyranny sounds ridiculous.

You sound like nobody likes you.

Removed. Rule 10.

What does the year have to do with anything?

Does one person really need rights?

Does one person really need rights?

According to the Ron Paul supporters on this site they sure as hell don't the protections of the Bill of Rights when interacting with state and local governments.

Getting pissed at me, as some do, for stating Ron Paul's stated position on the Bill of Rights seams strange to me.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/rand-paul-vs-ron-paul-on-the-constitutio

This is the only thing I can find. He's not wrong at all.

This is the only thing I can find. He's not wrong at all.

Except that "“we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases.”" the incorporation doctrine isn't phony and for him to say it is really isn't honest.

Depends on the right? When that right has extreme public safety concerns then we as a society have a obligation to address it. Finding where to draw the line though is what we should debate. To me it's cost/benefit. How many lives does it save verse how much personal freedom do I have to give up. I'm ok not owning WMDS as long as I know my neighbors don't have them either. I would be against all pistols being outlaws. So I land in the middle. I wouldn't mind talking about this as long as everyone avoids personal attacks.

How many lives does it save verse how much personal freedom do I have to give up.

The only way to enforce an effective legislation is to violate your rights as a citizen and force raid tactics on you. Gotta make sure we get all the illegal contraband! Don't worry, if you cooperate, SWAT will make sure there's not a mass shooting in your living room!

So are you calling for no laws? Im not sure I follow and I just want to make sure we're on the same page. To enforce property and safety rights we have to have a police force. Any group over 10 people starts to need rules to maintian order and function which calls for some form of enforcement.

So are you calling for no laws?

Binary thinking isn't conducive to intelligent conversation.

Any group over 10 people starts to need rules to maintian order and function which calls for some form of enforcement.

Sounds like you're reading directly from The Authoritarian Manifesto.

No i'm just asking where you would like to draw the lines at. I lean closer to liberty then authoraty but like you said binary thinking isn't conducive to intelligent conversation. I'm asking where do draw the line and how would you like that line enforced?

Sounds like you're reading directly from The Authoritarian Manifesto.

society is based on established rules. From when we were hunter gatherer to now we build civilizations and civilizations only function with rules and guide lines. The two can't be separated. If you believe in no rules thats fine thats your choice. I would just describe that as anarchy.

First of all, I never said I believe in no rules. There's a vast field of middle ground.

I would just describe that as anarchy.

What is your operational definition of anarchy?

Anarchy a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

Basically no rules or no one listening to the rules. I personally don't see any middle ground. You either have rules and laws or you don't right? Even setting where your lines are and what rules to have is creating rules. No civilization has ever existed that wasn't built on one set of rules or another. Those rules can have grey areas but if the option is rules or no rules there isn't a grey area I can see but I'm willing to let you explain what you mean.

Anarchy a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Basically no rules or no one listening to the rules.

Disorder is not "basically no rules". More binary thinking. This seems to be a reoccuring trend.

Those rules can have grey areas but if the option is rules or no rules there isn't a grey area I can see but I'm willing to let you explain what you mean.

I'm still scratching my head at why you are so adamant about recontextualizing the conversation to be about "no rules". I have not and will not advocate for "no rules". You made that stance and now you want to argue against it. Very strange.

Start over with what I actually said if you want to have a discussion. Words are important.

You asked what my operational definition of anarchy I gave it

Anarchy a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

This is the definition of anarchy.

Disorder is not "basically no rules". More binary thinking

You're right disorder is not following rules. it seems like you cut up my sentence though I said No rules or not following the rules. Not following rules is disorder. If not will you please define disorder?

I'm still scratching my head at why you are so adamant about recontextualizing the conversation to be about "no rules"

The statement you made saying "The only way to enforce an effective legislation is to violate your rights as a citizen and force raid tactics on you." This statement sounds like you are saying the only way to enforce laws is to violate your rights. I took from that that you believe that law enforcement is a violation of your rights. So I asked for clarity of what you believe. I said

So are you calling for no laws? Im not sure I follow and I just want to make sure we're on the same page. To enforce property and safety rights we have to have a police force. Any group over 10 people starts to need rules to maintian order and function which calls for some form of enforcement.

So we can clear all this up. Do you think we need laws and if you think we as a society do need laws lets talk about what kind of Gun laws we should have and why.

disorder is not following rules.

NO. Disorder is literally a lack of order. Iraq was in DISORDER after the American bombing, but there were still rules. See the difference??

The statement you made saying "The only way to enforce an effective legislation is to violate your rights as a citizen and force raid tactics on you." This statement sounds like you are saying the only way to enforce laws is to violate your rights.

Well, since we were taking about GUN legislation, I assumed that was a given in the discussion. Apologies for going as far as assuming the audience was following the conversation. But I was talking about gun legislation specifically because Americans have an attachment to their guns. You can make legislation all day long, but not everyone is going to volunteer to give up their contraband. So if you want your LEGISLATION to be EFFECTIVE, you must ENFORCE the legislation. Which is going to necessitate boots on the ground (not like our government is adverse in the least to doing so) and the boots we'll get on the ground are going to treat citizens like dirt or worse, kill people for not complying.

Laws are important to a functioning society, we've never disagreed on that. But GUN law is emotional for a lot of America, and will lead to a conflict that will make a mass shooting look like a playground dispute.

The only way to have disorder is to have rules When people follow rules you have order When people don't follow rules you have disorder. You can't have people following rules and have disorder even if you mean "CONFUSION" when saying disorder because the confusion would be not knowing the rules to follow.

Iraq was in disorder after the american bombings because of the break down of rules. Otherwise they would of been following the rules and they would of had order. The could of been confused about what the rules mean and that would be the "disorder" you are referring to.

dis·or·der ˌdisˈôrdər/Submit noun 1. a state of confusion. "tiresome days of mess and disorder" synonyms: untidiness, disorderliness, mess, disarray, chaos, confusion verb 1. disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of. "she went to comb her disordered hair" synonyms: untidy, unkempt, messy, in a mess, mussed (up), mussy;

I agree to have effective gun legislation we must enforce our laws. If people don't want to give up there contraband then they are breaking the law and are responsible for the consequences. I have no empathy for law breakers. If they don't like the law then they are free to vote just like everyone else. If they want to resort to violence then they are breaking more laws then contraband laws. If they want to resort to violence then it just reinforces they shouldn't have guns. If a person is allowed to say I don't agree with Gun laws what stops them from saying they dont have to listen to drunk driving laws? I don't care if they are emotionally attached to their guns. Crack heads are emotionally attached to there crack doesn't change a thing. If they are a public safety concern then they should be regulated like everything else found to e a public safety issue.

Saying something shouldn't be illegal because then we would have to enforce the law doesn't make any sense. If people will violently resist then they will be meet with force just like if they violently resisted having their drugs taken from them. As soon as the resort to violence they give up empathy. We have laws for non-violent change and it's up to their personal responsibility to follow those channels no matter how difficult they may be. I don't like Betsy Devos but I'm not going to use violence to change her.

1. disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.

How does bombing Iraq not fit this definition?

I have no empathy for law breakers.

And neither does law enforcement. Demonstrably. Allowing them to continue to have carte blanche in how law is enforced has and will lead to the breakdown of society. Something you and I agree is bad. No one voted to have LEO's above the law, but that is the reality. Expecting otherwise from them is foolish.

Crack heads are emotionally attached to there crack doesn't change a thing.

Crack heads don't have a constitutional right to crack.

Saying something shouldn't be illegal because then we would have to enforce the law doesn't make any sense.

I agree, which is why I never said that.

If people will violently resist then they will be meet with force

Now you're insinuating that everyone who has been met with force was a violent resister. Demonstrably false.

Depends on the right? When that right has extreme public safety concerns then we as a society have a obligation to address it. Finding where to draw the line though is what we should debate. To me it's cost/benefit. How many lives does it save verse how much personal freedom do I have to give up.

I used the same argument in another thread regarding the shooting, but in relation to mental health...which is almost always the reason why these people commit mass murders. If you're batshit crazy and a danger to yourself and to society at large you should be forced to be medicated or live out your life in a mental institution.

Yeah we live in a group with other people. We have to have guidelines for the safety of everyone.

What's the difference between 19 rifles and 19 clips? Maybe I want to arm my family in the case of government tyranny or foreign invasion, however unlikely they may be.

No one has answers your question honestly. No, no one needs 19 fucnikng guns or an extended clip

Do you need more than one shirt? More than one pair of pants? More than one electronic device?

I sincerely hope so for the first two.

Does someone really need 20 movies? 20 baseball cards? 20 cars? Most gun collectors are no different than any other collector.

You do realize that guns are used for things other than committing mass murders, right?

Okay. I'm not even saying you can't have 100 guns but how about background checks(maybe even only for semi or automatics?) Or a 2 week waiting period on a gun? America sees gun ownership as a right and healthcare a privilege... it seems so strange to the rest of the world.

Agreed.

They'll never take our guns away. Maybe in the midst of the aftermath of the civil war they're preparing us for. But I live in libtard Oregon and even in chicks with dickstown US isn't willing to even talk about giving up arms. It's just not a legit discussion in the United States.

I too live in Portland guns ain't going anywhere anytime soon

I live in Portland too. I've got several "liberal" friends who are very well armed, and practiced in using their weapons.

The phrase "gun control" is a buzzword, nothing more. It has zero standalone meaning because there are so many possible outcomes within the very idea. Types of guns, types of mags, types of ammo, potential owners, background checks, etc.

People say "we new gun control" after events like these can never nail down exactly what they mean. It becomes a trending hashtag and buzzword around the water cooler for 2 weeks and it's on to the next.

Thats not true. You did a pretty good job of discribing the issues. Types of guns, mags, ammo, owners and background checks. Each point you just listed can be added to legiastion. Ban all made at home AR15's? We could make a law for that so we don't have untracebale guns on the street. Increase background checks and stop unregistered person to person sales we could make a law for that. So the words "Gun Control" is just the short version of talking about each one of those issues. If I say I want more gun control it could be anyone of those issues. If I say I want less gun control it could eqaully be anyone of those issue. Guns won't always be legal in the US ask a felon. They can very well take guns away from everyone. I doubt it would get that far but we can talk about where we want the line to be right?

But no one extrapolates on what they mean by "gun control", that's my point. The internet zombie masses just repeat it after these events and no one knows what they mean by it. Meanwhile most Americans, most republicans in fact, are already in favor of some sort of gun control.

Oh sorry. I understand. I always try to talk about substance with gun control. Like I would like guns tracked and registered. I know all the bad things that can happen with making lists of gun owners but I think it does't out way the risk from not tracking guns. I understand this isn't what other people think and thats ok. I would like see guns regulated to sells like proscription drugs. Licensed sellers only and person to person gun sales tracked by serial numbers.

Get on a plane to Australia and see what happened to the people who never thought their guns would be taken away.

You do know we can still legally own guns in Aus, right?

Yup. This isn't about taking guns away, this is will sell same level security currently in use in airports but now in hotels, schools and any where else they want. Meaning not only will you willing volunteer for more scanning while taking a flight, but you will also for the hotels you want to stay at or public buildings you visit.

Huh, even when I up vote this the count stays at 0. Must have struck a nerve. Well said!

We should all get arms and end the elite cult if you ask me.

Wait, you aren't armed?

He lost them in a car accident, you brute!

Lol

^ Here is why we need fire arm restrictions. Right here. It's the nutjobs of the world doing these killings.

Shill or idiot? My guess is shill.

Do you really think someone paid me to write that? Do you really think that?

"We should get arms and end the elite cult!"

"Wait now hold on a second"

"SHILL! SHILL! SHILL!"

confusedmanblinkinginamazement.gif

The guy is calling for killing people and you support this? Sick. Also read the sub rules.

Removed. Rule 10.

Removed. Rule 4.

If this turns out to be the reason this person did this it would be so disgusting. If thats the reason people want guns then we need to make laws to make sure they don't get them.

Removed. Threatening violence is not where you need to go.

Im not a subscriber, but I am a Lurker and a long time fan of conspiracy theories. The silencing of discussion throughout reddit is disturbing and I am sure bringing a lot of others like me to the sub.

It’s at 73 upvotes now, does that make it fake?

Jesus has over powered the Shills!

I am with you. I signed off after having enough of the this shit yesterday to see that it no longer is frozen at zero and I got 70 some odd upvotes. Honestly seemed like this thread was placed in a queue for a couple hours and then all the voted came or it got a LOT of love in Australia. Ultimately I think it was a little of both, part of the mechanics of the site work and that some people where trying to suppress LV shooting discussions at least temporarily.

Reddit made a change a while back so that any thread with a score < 0 shows up as just 0. Doesn't apply to comments though, IIRC.

Agree, I figured it was some mechanic or something like that but I will back up OP in saying it was rapidly downvoted after it started to gain a little bit of traction. Using what we all three are saying this could explain what I saw and would just be another example of what we all have seen over the past couple years. I think we can also all agree that over the last couple days we have had some guests to this sub that have had some alternative motives and I would not put it past them to use some of their dirtiest tricks to use an event like this.

Furthermore, I thought there was a thread a while back that went into some detail on how this site has been designed on the back end so that they can more or less restrict certain users content so that, at first, it is only visible to a small group of like minded people before the content gets reviewed and approved\ removed before it has a chance to reach the larger pockets of users. I will try aand find the sauce. But to me that's what it appeared to be. It was like I was in the lucky echo chamber, and we all liked it, then it got artfically squashed.

Anyways glad to see that it is not at 0 anymore, just saying I would not at all be surprised if the Parasites would go to such lenghts to try and supress independent journalism or civil discussion on an event this size, at least that is, until we have been told the official mantra and how you should feel.

Love you all, let's not jump to conclusions and let's let the evidence present itself.

There's definitely people who lurk /r/conspiracy and downvote basically everything, which is really annoying. TBH I'm a skeptic and I don't necessarily agree with a lot of what I see on this sub, but I never downvote a post just because I disagree with it.

The powers that be, having used up all their powers to remove your upvote, were powerless to prevent this post from making it to the top.

wow what a conspiracy!!! It's almost like thats how EVERY POST ON REDDIT WORKS

I'm annoyed that the usual social media suspects are saying "I'm mad because we're not doing anything about gun control", as if the legislation itself will solve the problem. How to point out to people that ENFORCEMENT is the only way gun control will be effective? I don't believe for a second they won't support police kicking in doors to private residences and raiding innocent people.

I don't think anyone thinks legistion will solve the problem. I think it might very well curb the amount of damage that can be done. If you make automatics weapons illegal then you can stop so many of them from being on the streets. It won't stop all of them from getting to the wrong places but it makes it harder for them to get. I'm progun but I'm open to the discussion of what should we do?

If you make automatics weapons illegal then you can stop so many of them from being on the streets.

It only takes one to make a mass shooting happen, and legislation doesn't close black markets. Most shooters don't have their guys registered, and don't purchase them legally.

Most of the recent mass shootings were all done with legally purchased weapons.

3% of gun related violence is committed with a legally purchased gun

Citation needed.

Visit downtown Chicago for the night.

Was there a few months ago. Stayed for 4 days. One of the cleanest cities I've ever seen. Never heard a single gunshot.

"I stayed in the nice part of town so there must be little crime here."

"I stayed in the bad part of town so there must be crime everywhere."

/u/TravisPM was just providing his experience.. no need to be snarky.

I was downtown. It was very nice. Did you mean a different downtown?

to be fair nobody visits a city and chooses to stay in a shitty part of town lol

Don't we judge all cities on the quality of their ghettos?

Southside and West Side of Chicago

Heyjackass.com

"3% of gun related violence is committed with a legally purchased gun" - /u/gmil3538

Get Trump to retweet it and it becomes law.

Most are killed by guns that were legally purchased and then sold. Look up straw purchase.

Most shooters don't have their guns registered

That's correct, because there's no federal registry, only a handful of state registries, and nobody with half a brain would want to register their firearms even if they could.

and don't purchase them legally.

Citation, please. You're implying that most shooters buy guns illegally, and that's just not true.

You're implying that most shooters buy guns illegally, and that's just not true.

Nope, you're right. My bad.

You have to do drugs to overdose, so I don't see why drugs are illegal, we just shouldn't do them.

You have to do drugs to overdose, so I don't see why drugs are illegal, we just shouldn't do them.

Are you insinuating that there's something disagreeable about your assertion?

I'm saying it's a silly argument. Sure we can make drugs legal, but it's not going to solve any problems

Sure we can make drugs legal, but it's not going to solve any problems

Many actual first world nations would vehemently disagree with you.

The point here is that your even your foregone conclusions have contrary evidence.

So making heroin legal is a good solution to the negative effects of heroin?

That's not what you just said.

I said "drugs," heroin is a drug, so yes, that is what I just said

If you want to force a discussion on tenses, that's fine. But you won't get it from me.

Hahah ok that's fine by me. Also, I think you were looking for semantics not tenses, but hey I know what you meant, so no need to continue arguing semantics :).

Yes.

Ok, great. Let's do it

/r/EndTheDrugWar

Aw shucks a subreddit about legalizing weed. You win

About decriminalizing all drugs, not just weed... But, of course weed too :)

Don't you know that weed legalization is a gateway drug legalization :)

Side note there is an argument that people will do drugs and reasonable access should be made to the drugs to help deter crime. Say you have an opiate addiction and doctor cuts you off from a prescription where do you turn? To other means and in the current state most of those option are illegal by action of possession/etc. I'm not saying we should make heroine or meth so legal that kids can just get it but maybe we should give addicts access instead of jail as a social measure.

The problem is to rope it back in to guns is there is a broad problem that no bandaid will fix and in the same sentence no all encompassing law will fix either.

it makes it harder for them to get

I don't accept that argument. I can convert an AR-15 with a handful of parts bought online, some basic machining knowledge, and a drill press, in less than an hour.

Automatic weapons are not difficult to make. If no guns existed in the United States whatsoever, I could make a 9mm submachinegun with basic materials from the hardware store in just a couple of days.

You've actually proven them right. The example of the actual shooter, some guy doesn't know dick about guns.. versus you, gun MacGyver. You do have to realize, most can't say the same as you, and we are talking about the majority of would be shooters.. unless you're saying you're the would be shooter type?

Upvoted for gun MacGyver. Thanks for getting me to spit coffee all over my keyboard!

You do kinda prove my point. Not attacking you personally just to be clear just attacking the point. If you have to build a gun from hardware store parts thats much harder then just going and buying one. Also not saying you aren't a gun manufacturing god but there is a good chance that weapon isn't as powerful as one manufactured from a factory. Regulation does make things harder to get otherwise why even oppose regulation?

Not sure how easy it would be to produce hundreds of rounds of ammo too.

Pretty easy, brass can be reloaded tens of times. It takes me about an hour to load a couple hundred.

Why does the US have the most mass shootings per capita of developed countries then?

Definitely not because of the gun loving culture /s

It's funny how these shooters are never taken out by these civilians that need a gun for protecting themselves.

If you make automatics weapons illegal then you can stop so many of them from being on the streets.

You act like "the street" is flooded with automatic weapons. In reality you'll rarely see them because they're damn expensive and being caught with one minus the appropriate licences buys you a lot of trouble for little gain.

"The streets" are flooded with cheap, knockoff semiautomatic handguns. Rifles of any kind are rarely used in crime, automatic rifles even less so.

It's a non issue.

I mean it kinda is a issue since we just had a attack with one that killed so many people. If it was non-issue then we wouldn't even be talking about it. I totally agree though that rifles are used much less for violence then handguns ect. To me a non-issue would be them never being used but they are. I Agree not in great numbers but enough that we shoulldn't just ignore it. We have made progress on this front making the automatic weapons ban. Do you think the numbers being low show that the ban is working?

It's not an issue for the average conspiratard on Reddit but it certainly is an issue for the 600 people in Las Vegas who got shot by one fucking guy this morning.

Source in 600 shot vs crowd related injuries?

And I feel like you're very intentionally missing the point. If I fall off a ladder and hurt myself severely then sure, it's at the front of my mind. But that doesn't mean we suddenly have an issue with ladders.

Automatic weapons are so rarely used in violent crime that I'd be surprised if you can find me more than a handful of examples since the '30s, and even more surprised if you can find me even five in the last twenty years.

It isn't an issue for the country.

If I fall off a ladder and hurt myself severely then sure, it's at the front of my mind. But that doesn't mean we suddenly have an issue with ladders.

It's more like, if the ladder broke when you were on it, you might be in favor of some stricter ladder safety regulations.

Here's the main point: there's a functional difference between an automatic rifle and one that has been modified to shoot at a rate similar to automatic rifles. But there's a huge difference in the legality of those two weapons, in that automatic weapons are generally not legal to own (or at least very hard to obtain) and trigger cranks and bump stocks are easy and legal modifications. They already found two of those in the hotel room. Let's also not write off fully automatic but legal weapons as a possibility in this case before we know what his arsenal consisted of.

It's possible that all of the weapons he had were legal to own. That's a major problem, even if illegal automatic weapons on the street aren't.

I don't have a source on the 600 but that's roughly how many were injured by either being shot or fleeing. They're all still related to the incident.

It's more like, if the ladder broke when you were on it, you might be in favor of some stricter ladder safety regulations.

First off, it's a loose analogy. I think you already know that though and are just grasping for anything to argue.

Second, no it's not more like that. The user is the common denominator here. Say you add "restrictions" (more on that in a moment), what does that do to prevent him from ignoring the restrictions entirely? What if those restrictions don't apply to him? The user hasn't changed, no matter how well the ladder is built he can still fall off easily.

Here's the main point: there's a functional difference between an automatic rifle and one that has been modified to shoot at a rate similar to automatic rifles.

That may be a point you're going for, but it's not the point of this discussion which started with the claim that automatic weapons are a problem in crime. They aren't, it's that simple.

I imagine you would have been quick to point out examples of they existed.

It's possible that all of the weapons he had were legal to own. That's a major problem, even if illegal automatic weapons on the street aren't.

So back to the "restrictions" you mention above: How exactly do they prevent a 64 yo middle-upper class man with no prior mental health or legal history from obtaining them?

If he can't obtain them no one can. So what you're talking about is a violation of the 2A, might as well just come out and say it.

In doing so you should consider if America really needs to give up the right to not only this but also due process and protection against search and seizure, because that's what you're talking about when you decide this is the best course of action.

I for one would prefer to keep the few rights I still have.

And the numbers don't support your claim of "a huge problem" with legal gun ownership. The ratio of illegal shootings to gun ownership doesn't support this, you're talking about a few thousand to hundreds of millions.

I don't have a source on the 600 but that's roughly how many were injured by either being shot or fleeing. They're all still related to the incident.

Ah but that's not what you said above, is it? You said that 600+ people were shot by one man.

Pretty significant difference in context of the discussion.

First off, it's a loose analogy.

It's no looser than yours. Restrict dangerous alternatives in favor of safer ones as a preventative measure. Does it work in 100% of cases? Of course not. No law does. But by your logic, why should we have preventative laws against anything if "users" are just going to act how they wish? I presume there are at least some of these laws you would agree with. Some restrictions actually work pretty well with adequate enforcement, as I'm sure you know.

How exactly do they prevent a 64 yo middle-upper class man with no prior mental health or legal history from obtaining them?

Again, it's not meant to be a cure-all. But let's at least try to make it harder to kill at such a massive scale.

what you're talking about is a violation of the 2A

I frankly don't care what you call it. 200+ year old documents often need facelifts. The founders weren't perfect, and that's why they left a repeal mechanism in place. Replace it with something that addresses our current needs, and eliminate the vagueness about "militias" and "arms".

I'm in favor of legal, responsible gun ownership. I'm not in favor of incredibly liberal gun laws that allow potentially dangerous people to amass arsenals and having the capacity to kill 59 people in a very short amount of time. I'd love to see you keep a straight face while telling me this crime could have been committed at the same scale using only handguns.

you should consider if America really needs to give up the right to not only this but also due process and protection against search and seizure, because that's what you're talking about when you decide this is the best course of action.

I can't disagree with one part of the Constitution? If I think 2A is outdated and in need of revision, I must necessarily think the rest is garbage, too? Would you say this of people who were in favor of repealing the prohibition amendment? This is total nonsense.

You said that 600+ people were shot by one man

I said 600. Call it 500. Call it 400. Call it 300. How many is enough for you to realize that legal ownership of these types of guns is problematic?

It's no looser than yours.

Indeed, since I'm clearly referring to mine I'd say that makes sense.

Restrict dangerous alternatives in favor of safer ones as a preventative measure.

Uh huh. Sounds great, until you stop to think about the fact that we're discussing firearms and the only danger lies in the user.

By your logic why should we have preventative laws against anything if "users" are just going to act how they wish?

I'm not sure where you've determined this as my logic. I'm fine with background checks and keeping felons from buying guns. I would love for private sellers to have access to background checks.

What I'm not fine with is vague "prevention" that doesn't do anything further to stop these incidents. I'm not fine with people like you being willing to decide that I should give up my rights based on the actions of the very few.

Again, it's not meant to be a cure-all. But let's at least try to make it harder to kill at such a massive scale.

It's always amusing when your type pretends there aren't already measures in place. You demand the "100%" prevention and refuse to recognize that these incidents are extreme outliers in relation to the number of guns in circulation.

You're talking about 13,000 or so gun homicides each year out of hundreds of millions of people and guns, and only a small percentage of those are random, non-gang related shooters. You have 99%+ not being used for illegal violence and it's not good enough.

I frankly don't care what you call it. 200+ year old documents often need facelifts.

I wondered if you'd ever get around to some honesty. It's always the same with you folks: "No one is trying to take your guns, we just don't want anyone to have guns". Blah, blah, blah.

Well here's a news flash for you: even if you were able to pull off a repeal you would succeed only in making a black market for illegal buyers. You would stop absolutely nothing except the hundred thousand or so people who use them to protect themselves every year. You would serve the country up on a platter to every criminal, gang and malicious government agency, then cry about some other non-issue that you'll definitely fix this time.

Here's another news flash: the country doesn't want a repeal. It's that simple.

I'd love to see you keep a straight face while telling me this crime could have been committed at the same scale using only handguns.

I'd like to see you tell me with a straight face that rifles are suddenly a problem considering their use in violent crime is so rare.

I can't disagree with one part of the Constitution? If I think 2A is outdated and in need of revision, I must necessarily think the rest is garbage, too?

This is why I don't like people like you. You can't think. You latch onto this one idea and get tunnel vision.

Use your head. Say you get rid of the 2A. Now you have some 2-300,000,000 guns in the country that are illegal, and in many areas every household has at least one.

Are you going to offer to buy them back at fair market value? No, it would cost far too much. So you would rely on some few voluntarily turning in their guns, then go after those who did not.

So besides the fact that you as the government just robbed people who committed no crime of their money and possessions, you also have another problem: people aren't honest, especially when it comes to protecting what's theirs.

You have no way to know if that person who turned in one gun has ten more buried somewhere or hidden in their basement. You have no idea who all is in possession of these guns because there is no federal registry and even if there were there's no way to track private sales and gifts. And even if there were, there's no reason to believe most people would comply with it because they saw this coming a mile away.

So what are your options?

You would have to go door to door searching every home, every nook and cranny, every property. You would have to open deposit boxes in banks and use metal detectors in yards.

And you would have to do all this without any due process or legitimate warrants. In short, you would turn America into a complete and total police state, and very likely trigger a civil war in the process.

You would take good, law abiding people who believe that the government grants privileges, not rights and turn them into criminals.

All for what? A promise of safety that can't be kept?

I said 600. Call it 500. Call it 400. Call it 300. How many is enough for you to realize that legal ownership of these types of guns is problematic?

A hell of a lot more than 13,000 or so when hundreds of millions of guns are owned.

If your claim holds any water then gun violence should be going up as ownership goes up. But it's not.

If your claim holds any water then there should be hundreds of thousands or more dead by gun violence every year. But there's not.

It's easy pretty easy to see if you don't have a season pass to ride the emotional rollercoaster every time it takes off.

What I'm not fine with is vague "prevention" that doesn't do anything further to stop these incidents.

Nothing vague. Ban the trigger cranks, ban the bump stocks, register the guns. Will this stop all gun crime? No, of course not. Will it make massacres like we saw in Las Vegas more difficult? Yes, of course it will.

You demand the "100%" prevention and refuse to recognize that these incidents are extreme outliers in relation to the number of guns in circulation.

I think you flat out missed the part where I said:

"Does it work in 100% of cases? Of course not. No law does."

Want a do-over on that one, ace?

"we just don't want anyone to have guns"

Nobody said that. In fact, I said:

"I'm in favor of legal, responsible gun ownership."

You're 0 for 2.

Say you get rid of the 2A. Now you have some 2-300,000,000 guns in the country that are illegal

Negative. First off, repealing 2A wouldn't magically make all guns illegal, that theoretically would be an additional act of Congress. But we wouldn't even get there because, secondly, if it was replaced with something more specific like I proposed, it would leave the large majority of gun owners alone. So the door-to-door SWAT team gun confiscation fantasy you proposed isn't even relevant. I know you've got a brain knocking around somewhere in there, let's see you use it.

0 for 3.

A hell of a lot more than 13,000

I guess you want more gun violence? I don't know, personally, I'd like to see less.

gun violence should be going up as ownership goes up

Oh right, because when two variables are correlated, that naturally implies causation, right? There are no other factors at play like poverty, population density, and access to law enforcement?

Swing and a big miss, you're now 0 for 4. I'm benching you.

Your a fucking shill, if not your missing some chromosomes or just never learned to have a logical critical analytical mind.

These mass shootings take place in gun free zones.

If everyone had a side arm, it would have been much more difficult for paddock to pull it off by himself (official narrative)

As it is the logistics of this shooting are just not possible with an aged average man.

If he was with ISIS then why didn't the Nevada Fusion Centers red flag this guy.

This is without a doubt a CIA/MOSSAD operation.

Its time to wake up and think with a logical critical mind.

Removed. Rule 10. First warning.

It's not a non-issue. 60 people were killed and 500+ were injured in one single event. That can never be a non-issue

I was told a while back that most crimes im the US are still committed with revolvers. I don't know if that's true. But there's a lot of .38s I'm the world.

That's correct but general crime and mass shootings are kinda different issues.

Well considering in many cases these shooters are given their weapons by law enforcement agencies, such as in that case recently where the FBI was trying to get a schizophrenic kid to go shoot up somewhere, I don't think there's much we can do, other than give the government what it wants and ban guns. Because they won't stop with these incidents until they've terrorized the public into accepting new legislation.

It's pretty counter productive to stage events to ban something. It would be much easier just to ban the thing and ignore the outrage. I"m not saying the FBI hasn't done some dumb shit. I just think as a institution they are ok but individuals in the organization can be bad apples. Just think about how much money they lost on tax revenue alone not to mention the response. Millions of dollars. They could of spent that money on just telling the public we did this thing sorry you don't like it move along. Besides Trumps the president you think he signed off on this?

You are just skimming the surface, Trump is Most likely not privy to many black operations. The intelligence communities hate him.

I'm no fan of any of the presidents we've had since I was born 40 years ago, but you do enough digging and you start to figure out who is a real insider and who is not.

Trump has wealth and Jesuit ties so he can choose not to be bought if he doesn't want to be bought.

On the flip side, often many leaders can be bought/blackmailed into compromise and silence.

I applaud you for at least asking questions, you just arent asking the right ones.

You will know your asking the right questions when you are treated like a lunatic and dismissed by masses of people who receive their information from a mainstream source.

The people in charge want you open to the discussion. They want law abiding citizens to be so scared that they finally are okay to sign away a very important freedom for the illusion of safety. Once that happens they can get away with a lot more than they already do. Please don't fall for the gun control bullshit. If someone wants to kill people, they'll always figure out how. We should at least have the ability to defend ourselves in a situation like that, but more importantly defend ourselves from a tyranical government if needed. Full stop. No negotiating. Anything else is propaganda by people who want more power.

There should be a law against fully-automatic weapons. Oh wait...

So how the fuck are mass shootings still happening? /s

It may have something to do with how easily they can be acquired. Private sales make it really hard to track.

Putting barriers on these things won’t stop sales but it will probably jack up the price.

But more importantly something needs to be done about the utterly shit mental health situation as well as the media glamorizing shooters.

Or how about just having more security in mass gatherings of people?

Ah yeah every concert or festival, every parade or fireworks show, we'll have police and SWAT positioned strategically everywhere in the US. Better security would have completely prevented a guy shooting from the windows of his 32nd floor suite down at people. Where was the security amirite guys?

Maybe outdoor festivals are not realistic anymore? They have security at presidential rallies.

But wait taking away our freedoms and agency is a better idea! Amirite guise?

Right, let's cancel the concept of outdoor gatherings of people but that's not taking away freedoms. Because freedoms means easy access to any guns you want. But wait what about all those football and baseball games, from high school to pro. Track meets too, lots of people outside in one place at those. Guess that's not realistic anymore either, too bad.

People will still be able to get guns though. Youre being incredibly naive and falling for their narrative.

Look at the attacks in fucking Europe. Does control help prevent those?

It's only a matter of fucking time before criminals learn how to use 3D printers anyway. It's so bad that in europe its fucking illgal to defend yourself and youre held liable for injuring attackers.

Youre advocating for just taking peoples freedom away even though it wouldnt even fucking help.

And anyway. Just because you dont like guns that doesnt mean its a good idea ever to sacrifice your freedoms. There are other actual solutions which make more sense, but yeah submit to authority, amirite guise?

You're claiming the solution to gun violence in the US is 'more security' and not to have outdoor gatherings anymore and I'm naive? What a joke. Europe? Yeah, access to guns there is much harder and what a surprise there's much less gun crime. That's why terrorists have to get creative with vehicles and other means. The murder rate is way higher in the US than the EU so yeah it looks like they're doing something right overall.

You keep saying muh freedoms like gun control is the only thing keeping you free in this country. You know your freedoms are restricted and controlled every single day, right? Speed limits on roads restrict your driving for safety, not shouting fire in a theater restricts your freedom of speech for safety, see the pattern yet? Background checks, gun show/private sale requirements, records of sale, waitlists. None of this is going to keep you from stocking up on guns and continuing to use them absolutely nowhere practical except on the range while you pretend to stop shooters and terrorists. Let's grow up here.

You've obviously given up on freedom and have completely submitted to authority. I bet it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Shouldn't we try every other possible solution before surrendering our freedoms. Useful idiots like you just rush straight to the polling booth to vote your agency away, sad.

Europe's murder rate and bodily harm rate is rising every year and it wont be long before it matches the United States's. But the government will never let them protect themselves and the government can be as tyrannical as they want without worry. It's already fucking terrible there. Look whats happening in Catalonia.

The founding fathers have already thought this problem through and come to the conclusion that individual rights Trump the consequences of liberty. Andrew Jackson had been shot several times in his life in duels which were commonplace back then. Gun crime was just as much a problem in the 18th century if not more and people actually would commonly carry multiple flintlock pistols so they had the same capacity as revolvers which is considered the minimum for adequate personal defense. The following is a picture of how they carried their weapons: http://imgur.com/a/DgSP8

And anyway. Why not let separate communities have differing levels of gun control? And the current methods of gun control are completely ineffective. If a city wants to ban guns I agree they should be able to but I wouldnt wanna live there unless they somehow guaranteed that no one had guns.

And good fucking luck taking people's fucking guns in America. Criminals will ALWAYS have access to guns. Even in Europe there are guns for sale on the black market. You have no idea what you are talking about.

This is a fucking 3D printed gun:

http://imgur.com/a/FTZEn'

This is a fucking DIY 3d printer made of a glue gun and legos and perfectly capable of producing plastic guns.

http://imgur.com/a/a3bFK

Guns are actually very simply objects and a metal tube with a small hole in one side with the end blocked off produces a musket. Now though sophisticated plastic guns are 3D printable which could even be semi automatic and concealable. Furthermore metal 3D printers will one day be cheap enough and if society does not learn how to cooperate and create a distributed means of trusting one another, and tolerate eccentric lifestyles and free speech and what not we are going to only give up power to a totalitarian police state because the metal 3D printers will allow criminals or your average psycho the means to create things much more destructive than pistols.

How do you suppose we should ban those 3D printed plastic guns? Ban "glue guns?" You realize that's basically what a cheap 3D printer is? No matter what you do the opposition will learn to get around it, whether that is cyber snooping or literally banning 3D printers. People will learn how to make their own 3D printers and the instructions for how to do so will be posted online.

Allowing it on the clear net means there is a chance that they can be tracked, at least, but criminals already know how to use tor and your average psycho on the internet certainly knows how to use tor. And if tor gets taken down it's only a matter of time before someone makes an alternative because there are reasons to want to protect your privacy other than violent crime, but when society goes after people for "crimes" that are simply individual choice and ethical then it forces good citizens to need the same things criminals need to protect their identity.

A more open, tolerant, and understanding society would mean that people feel less threatened sharing their information and would mean that only people who actually want to do something bad have anything to hide. Unfortunately that would take a major change in culture and society which is actually less probable than a totalitarian police state but we should at least try. Before it's too late.

It's only a matter of fucking time before your average pyscho, terrorist or criminal smartens up a bit then this is going to blow up in our fucking faces literally and the only deterrent will be either a totalitarian police state or armed citizens. Alternatively we could come up with a decentralized means of trusting one another, maybe using some kind of circle of trust on social media, like if 5 people sign off on trusting someone then they are cleared from checking their house for forbidden legos and glue guns? Anyway it's in our best interest to start cooperating online right now before the state steps in and starts "protecting" us through totalitarian police state policies.

Also gun control advocates fail to take into consideration an individual's right to protect themselves. Just because YOU feel safe relying on a corrupt system for your protection does not mean everyone else does and that also means that people living in rural areas will have zero defense against criminals. There really are no-go zones for police in Europe but that also exists in America. There really are neighborhoods in places like Compton that are entirely gang controlled and cops wont go there without a swat team and you may have to wait half and hour for police to arrive when you call them.

Not to mention by the time the police are called it is too late and there is already a victim. But gun control advocates don't even consider people like truckers who travel across the nation and may have to sleep at sketchy truck stops for example. An individual should be allowed adequate protection anywhere in the United States, not just rich gated neighborhoods.

And it's not fair to punish legal gun owners for the acts of criminals. Many of the guns used in crimes are stolen but it's simply unethical to punish individuals that are law abiding for criminals behavior. This might not mean much to you but for those of use that regard liberty as essential for life and not an arbitrary abstract concept, it has validity.

We should be trying every fucking possible solution before surrendering our freedoms to the federal government. I do not understand why people like you want so badly to not be free. You're obviously brainwashed and cucked. There ARE other options, yet youre the one unwilling to try them. Just straight to giving more power to centralized authority, sick!

Have you realized why violent psychos pick movie theaters and schools as targets? Because theyre specifically gun free zones! Criminals can always get weapons! Especially in America! You want to surrender your freedoms even when it will barely fucking work and then there will be no going back and the government cant be stopped by then. We will never get our freedoms back so the only option is to never fucking surrender them in the first place. If a single city or community wants to ban guns i guess they should be let to do that but its a nightmare either way. We need more robust methods of trusting eachother. One idea might be using a form of cryptographic tokens to determine who is trustworthy by a type of "circle of trust system." Why wouldnt you even want to try something like that instead of being so fucking enthusiastic about cucking yourself???

Here is an interesting statistic: for every person killed in Chicago this year someone has had acid thrown in their face in London! http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/14/europe/acid-attacks-london-numbers-trnd/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/us/chicago-murder-rate-2016-visual-guide/index.html

damn!

Premeditated murderers will always find a way to kill people. Things like gun control aren't designed to actually lessen murders. Their only intention is to control people. In fact EU officials want more destabilization. It fits perfectly with their totalitarian agenda. Soon criminals will learn about 3D printers and then they can implement a full totalitarian police state.

Dont let this happen in the US. Once you give up your guns its game over. In Europe you are responsible if you hurt a person attacking you. I know someone who spent a year in prison because he punched a mugger in the face. Women are taught to let men rape them.

sick if true, your ancestors are rolling in their graves

Did you just assume my race?

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Security can only do so much. Firearm laws can only do so much. Mental health services can only do so much. Non-sensationalising media can only do so much.

But together they can be a potent combo.

The problem is that there are a subset of people that REFUSE flat out to discuss anything to do with gun controls or mental health services.

It’s not easy at all to acquire automatic weapons.

Apparently this guy had like 20? Couldn't he have bought them from a series of private sellers on craigslist or something?

I had a quick google and came up with a website called Armslist that had many assault rifles for sale in Nevada. The one that the shooter was mainly using was illegal, I get that. But it seems a hell of a lot easier to buy an arsenal in Nevada than Sydney.

Easy is a relative term, but from the looks of it any Nevada resident could simply buy whatever gun they want as long as someone is willing to sell. No background check, no need to register. The only hurdle is the seller needs to determine if you "look suspicious".

I don't think that is enough and I don't think tightening those laws constitute taking away someone's right to bare arms.

I'm sorry, but every single tyrannical government in history steady worked on disarming citizens under the guise of keeping people safe until they were completely defenceless.

I think these people are groomed into doing shootings so the media can force a narrative.

Gun control isn't a viable option. The fact that we have an armed populace is the only reason they aren't snatching ballot boxes out of our hands.

I'm sorry, but every single tyrannical government in history steady worked on disarming citizens under the guise of keeping people safe until they were completely defenceless.

so have plenty of non-tyrannical governments. Having an AR10 or AR15 isn't going to "stop tyranny". Its a bullshit argument.

You don't think it would be better than nothing?

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation."

-Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Dunno why but I read that in Jordan Peterson's voice.

I didn't know who that guy is, but we share an alma mater. Looks interesting; any recommendations?

This is a good brief introduction with a link to the longer interview.

https://youtu.be/IzD4TeOQ-so

Looks great! Looking forward to listening later on. Thank you.

Better than nothing? Sure. But when an armored vehicle is sitting outside of your house, you've been flash banged, and its the dead of night, your gun isn't going to do anything against the 20 trained, armed, soldiers. Nor will your gun do anything to protect you against your water being poisoned, grid shut down, or a missile dropped in your neighborhood.

So what's your solution? Give up?

Luckily your reasoning is faulty. The US military is never going to have 20 trained, armed soldiers for every gun owner. The ratio is actually more than 20 armed citizens per soldier. Disarmament is never going to happen without a fight.

My reasoning that armed civilians have no chance against a modern military is faulty? Huh. I must not understand how good rifles are against armored vehicles, helicopters, and jets.

Oh yeah I guess that's why Iraq and Afghanistan, with together 23% of the population of the USA, are such peaceful democracies now, lol. We totally won in Vietnam too.

So how do you think we'd be better off disarmed, and what's your alternative solution for effecting the radical political reform that the US requires?

i don't have the answers, i just think its ridiculous to make the argument people MUST be able to own guns because 250 year ago armed militias kicked out an oppressive regime.

That quote actually counteracts your argument though. It's saying that there is always a way to fight but that people generally don't take it.

OP said resistance is futile, and Solzhenitsyn said any resistance would have been successful in slowing or stopping the democidal tyranny. How does that contradict anything I said? The possibility of acquiescence is a separate issue, and in fact taking away the means of the people to resist makes acquiescence much more likely.

So have plenty of non tyrannical governments? What does that even mean?! The Nazis used gun control, but so does Canada so its just acceptable now?!

And the idea of having an armed citizenry is not a bull shit argument. You twisting my argument into "one man with an ar15 vs the entire US military wouldn't work" is bull shit. you're trying to make the argument sound like that is the only tool Americans can think of to fight tyranny.

I'm usually open to others point of view on this sub, but you need to wake the fuck up.

Let's be real, we're already living under a tyrannical government. We as a people, are doing nothing about it. But the argument that "oh well the nazi's took guns, so if we disarm, that totally means america is under tyrannical rule" is bad reasoning.

I'm plenty woke, thanks. I noticed you didn't have an actual counter to my statement that gun ownership won't stop a tyrannical government in the way wars are fought today. Go ahead an plink away at that tank, soldier.

It's an unfortunate fact of American life that doesn't apply elsewhere. There are many and far more peaceful countries where no one feels any need of a gun to protect themselves. Countries that you can't buy anything more than what any farmer or hunter would typically need or want and only a very few places that you can actually buy them.

Places where the very idea of stores on the corner in any large city with a selection of over 50 different kinds of handguns for the citizens to defend themselves from themselves would be inconceivable and utterly bizarre. An affront to their sense of being civilized and leaving the law and it's enforcement to the police they pay taxes to maintain order and keep the peace.

You have the facts, but you haven't made the connection between the presence of a federal government consisting of a few hundred wealthy people taking thousands of dollars per citizen to fund a $700 billion per year military, and a citizen's desire to exercise one the founding principles of the country? The connection between a government willing to imprison more people than any other country, and even now willing to openly assassinate its own citizens without trial at the president's command, and a citizen's desire to defend himself from that government?

Are you under the mistaken impression that Americans actually have the political power outside the force of arms to change any the things you're complaining about? Do you think the federal government and deep state had nothing to do with the daylight murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11? Not even to mention the deliberate culling and maiming of tens of thousands of young American men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And are you under the impression that there are no other options besides using a force of arms and violence to ever change that situation?

Isn't that precisely where it all got started in the first place? Isn't that part and parcel of the violence that permeates and still causes so much trouble? Does it not strike you that there has to another way or else nothing will really change at all?

That's simply not true. When you do a private sale the seller and buyer have to go to a FFL. The FFL runs a background check on the buyer right then and there.

When you buy a gun from Armslist, it has to be shipped to a federally licensed arms dealer and background check has to be done before you can pick the gun up. There also has to be paperwork from both the seller and the buyer as well. It's not like buying something off of eBay and it just shows up on your porch.

I sold a gun last weekend to a guy via armslist. That's not true at all unless I'm shipping it.

Shipping is the key.

Crossing State lines means it's federal law now.

Otherwise it's State laws apply, which vary greatly.

Most demand 100% face to face transactions with information recorded and verified.

Idk about "most". I like the Washington (state) law requiring FFL even for p2p sales. Here in SC there's nothing required at all, besides basically not intentionally selling to known felon.

I'll stand with you on that fully. I have a CHL and would feel comfortable selling only to other CHL holders private party.

This is not correct.

Yes, it is.

I own tons of firearms. I can carry concealed as I please and have licenses as well as clearances with the US government.

If the gun goes across state lines, it is a federal fuck you in the ass crime to ship it direct. If it's within the State, State laws apply.

Person to person sales are legal.

Anyone who is a dealer, also known as an FFL, who sells new guns absolutely does all that stuff. Paperwork, background, calling the Federal government on the phone right there and then.

Armslist is basically a place for dealers to sell cheap guns. It's like cars.com

Used guns, within the State, in person, is the only place the Federal check doesn't always hold. And only in certain states. And even then you can be held liable for failure to due diligence selling a weapon... Most private sellers want your god damn info, and many won't sell at all unless you have the licenses I have issued by the State after federal review.

You need to be careful. You really don't know our laws, and you don't seem to know anything about the processes.

Used guns, within the State, in person, is the only place the Federal check doesn't always hold. And only in certain states.

Like Nevada.

Yes it is. It's only 200 dollars for the tax stamp.

The part that makes it difficult is the cost. An m249 runs about 5k

For a semi auto one. Try 50k or more for a full auto gun.

Your obviously not familiar with the process or current prices.

A drop in sear for an AR to make it fully automatic costs tens of thousands.

The sear is about one inch, by two inches of metal. It could fit in the small front pocket on jeans.

The cost for legal full automatics is similar to luxury cars sold new...

The cheapest full-auto gun is a Mac10 at ~8-10k

It probably takes 6 months-year to acquire in full.

But it is easy to convert semi auto to automatic.

But illegal

No, not at all. Some years ago a guy was making a big noise about 3d printed parts to convert an AR system to full auto, but the parts still failed soon after use. It's pretty difficult unless you have access to a machinists shop and have extensive knowledge.

Everyone wants to talk about gun control. No one ever wants to talk about mental health treatment and research.

No one ever? Really?

Democrats have been saying it for ages. Mental health services should be a right of any citizen and shouldn't cost a thing.

People go on rampages when they don't have anything else to live for. Sometimes it is a bullied teen, and not much can change that. (Although fixing the media might help there somewhat) but many would never have thought of shooting up the place if there were enough safety nets to keep them from feeling like their life is over.

But again, we're talking about the USA, land of "fuck you, I've got mine... and if I don't got mine I'll kill you all and go out in a blaze of glory."

How would tracking the guns have helped in a situation where a man with no criminal record evidently went bonkers?

Um...it would have shown he was acquiring a shit load of weapons. That’s a pretty fucking large red flag. But in Nevada a man could acquire 50 guns in a week and nobody would ever know. He could get hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition and as long as it was bought privately from multiple people he would be fine.

If they were tracked to him then it would tip off that the dude is hoarding an Arsenal.

The only reason a person could want so many is to overthrow the government or go on a killing spree. And you ain’t overthrowing a government with drones and shit.

Take away the "/s" and it'd be a typical liberal response.

Ahh, so THATS how sarcasm works

Kind of... You need a class 3 license which usually means you need a federal firearms license. These aren't particularly hard to get just kind of spendy and take time to process/go through all of the background checks and things like that. Or you could go to Canada where they have fewer rules On what weapons can be imported...

They're not spend. It's 200 for the stupid little tax stamp

Ah. I thought it was just a little more than that. My bad

The dude in Vegas used a bump stock. Completely legal. People should decide for themselves whether that should be the case.

Because it's impossible to shoot semi autos rapidly. This guy would have arguably been more deadly if he had aimed his shots deliberately instead of spraying and praying.

Riiight because aiming single shots 40 stories up into a sea of people instead of spraying fully auto as quick as you can and reloading is clearly more effective.

I just hope you didn't spend too much time thinking about your comment before you shat it out your ass.

You have no idea what youre talking about. Have you ever even shot a gun at long range? Aimed controlled fire is much more effective even in crowds. That guy had barely any control.

Aimed controlled fire is much more effective even in crowds.

LMAO According to what? Please tell me you're trolling and not actually this mentally challenged.

Hurr durr spray and pray is better than accurate fire. You've played too much video games kid.

Into a crowd of people from the 32nd story of a building by an untrained gunman yes dumbfuck, not even comparable.

You've played too much video games kid.

Pot, meet kettle

hurr durr pot meet kettle

Did he run out of ammo or did the police knock down his door to stop him?

Try reading and you'll find out

Neither. He had full mags in his hotel room when the police entered. He killed himself the moment he saw law enforcement in his hallway.

And youve literally never shot guns at long range obviously.

Suspect was fully accurate? Uh, as a former machine gunner in the Marine Corps, it does NOT take much accuracy when firing into a large target area at that distance. It was a large concert, with a lot of people in attendance over a large area. The guy wasn’t using a bolt action rifle to pick people off one by one.

What this guy supposedly did is what us machine gunners would call enfilade fire, which is when the cone of fire (where the rounds are impacting), coincide or nearly coincides with the long axis of the target. Basically meaning you’re entire “impact area” is completely encompassed with your target. It’s a machine gunner’s wet dream.

Had this guy had military training, especially in regards to proper employment of machine guns and automatic weapons (PICMDEEP), this could have been WAY worse than it is.

Has this military man never shot guns at long range obviously?

Hurr durr mainstream media source says that automatic guns are badddd!

He ran out of fucking ammo! If he had aimed his shots carefully he would have done way more damage! He shot like 500 yet 50 people died. Honestly it's fortunate that he was dumb enough to lay down covering fire.

Do you undestand how covering fire works?!?!?? Its meant to fucking keep the enemies head down while the designated marksmen pick them off!

You have no fucking clue what youre talking about and obviously have never shot guns long range or had any military training. Keep playing video games and listening to mainstream media.

As a former machine gunner in the Marine Corps

try again dunce

Are you a former machine gunner? Obviously not because you do not know what covering fire is? Okay even assuming that rapid fire is beneficial youre acting like a person cant squeeze the trigger fast. That is obviously false. And semis can be easily modified to shoot fully automatic. Do you know that you can bump fire without an official "bump fire" stock?

Again. People are perfectly capable of squeezing a trigger fast. Again. Hitting people in the arms and legs is not beneficial. He also was too high up and chose probably too small of a caliber. A 338 lapua from a lower story window I think would have been much deadlier. And faster does not always equal more deadly!

Its no coincidence that there were so many injuries but relatively few deaths. He apparently hit like 300-400 people yet "only" killed 60. Think if he had been aiming for their chests. Actually much scarier.

And again. People are capable of squeezing triggers fast.

You do not sound like you have any experience shooting.

Ironic

I've had military training. The person quoted someone who was a machine gunner in the Marines. Not that any of that matters, common sense is common sense.

It's quite obvious you really don't understand the situation. Do you expect him to start sniping? No. It's a large crowd of people, just shoot into it. After if any are still left down there barely moving, sure take a few well aimed shots.

But yes in a situation like this it's literally shooting fish in a barrel, just rain down on them.

Also saying "Hurr durr" for every response definitely proves you know everything, right? Or maybe it is the opposite and makes your opinion look weak as all fuck.

Hurr durr fish in da barrell mommy!

If you really had military experience firing automatics you would know how hard it is to be accurate. And you would also know how easy it is to squeeze the trigger fast. Youre pretending that automatics are inherently deadlier in a situation like this but thats fucking bullshit. Even under your assumption that aimed fire is unnecessary it's possible to just squeeze the trigger fast. Youre the one that sounds like the fudding idiot.

Hey fucking moron, this guy wasn't trying to get quarter groupings at 500 yards. He was trying to get as many bullet holes into the broad side of a barn as possible in as little time. Just because you're super accurate with an M11 on Call of Duty doesn't mean that's the best way to hurt a crowd of thousands.

nice try but you sound retarded and u have no idea what your talking about

u think the person arguing hurr durr automatics bad isnt the COD player?

Do you have military experience? Have you even shot an automatic?

According to Call of Duty, lmao.

And youre pretending that someone cant just squeeze the trigger really fast.. retarded. Guns can fire as fast as you can move your finger. Automatic weapons being more dangerous are mostly just a meme.

You clearly haven't watched the videos. Or graduated high school.

And youve clearly never shot a fucking gun at long range. Accurate controlled fire is almost always more deadly. Its perfectly possible to do the same amount of damage with a semi auto. It's retarded to think otherwise. Arguably it's harder with fully automatics. This guy may have been more deadly had he aimed deliberately and been forced to squeeze the trigger for every shot.

Did he run out of ammo or did the police stop him?

How are you this dumb? You're trolling, right?

. Accurate controlled fire is almost always more deadly

Not at 360 metres.

Jesus christ. You think that hitting people in the arms and legs is beneficial then? And youre acting like its impossible to squeeze a trigger fast. Holy shit and btw it's fucking easy as fuck to modify weapons to shoot automatically.

I think both your arguments are valid, have life about gaining greater truth not whos truth is greater.

Thanks. Have you shot automatics before? Or shot in general at all?

Lmao ya I'm from montana

Google a “bump stock”. It basically turns an AR15 into a full auto. I had no idea these existed

I'm not sure it was a bump stock. In one video, the rate of fire changes twice during a burst. This leads me to think it could have been a hand crank trigger mechanism. They make those, too.

This attack in las vegas was shown to likely have been committed with a completely legal device that allows you to replicate automatic fire with a semi-automatic weapon.

I'm sure people will find a way to rationalize its legality for 'sport' and 'personal defense' somehow, though.

Yeah let's use Canada's gun laws then

I can’t tell are you being sarcastic?

Well they don't have mass shootings like us and have even fewer laws.

And Australia. We haven't had a single mass shooting since gun laws were tightened in the 90s. Few people have guns in their homes other than farmers and collectors and guess what - gun violence is very low. Of course there are criminals, but there will always be. The gun culture in America is just insane to me.

What are you talking about. Have you ever bought a gun in Canada or are you just repeating fake horse shit you read somewhere else?

Yes as a Canadian who has gone through the process this whole thread is such a joke. Really shows the lack of investigation put in by a lot of these people around here.

Can you give a link to this source? Curious to what he was able to get to make a semi auto automatic.

No source yet, just circumstantial evidence from people here on Reddit who provided a comparison between the shooting audio and a demonstration of one such device. They both had a very characteristic and strange shooting rhythm that made it rather clear this is true.

I don't remember the name of it but it was for an AR-15 and basically let you hand crank the trigger at de facto automatic rates.

bump or a little lever that you rotate and fires 4 rounds for every full rotation.

You can use a truck to kill just as many people. When are we going to out law trucks?

Trucks aren't designed, produced and sold according to the fundamental purpose that they will kill.

Neither are guns. Tools are given purpose by the one who yields them. I have a gun and hope to never use it. Yet, you state the purpose of it is so I can kill someone. I keep it for self defense just like I keep a knife or mace. Purpose is given by the person using the tool without a person to pull the trigger it is just a lump of metal. If a person wants to murder people and you remove one tool from the arsenal they will A) get the tool illegally or B) use another tool. Shooting Targets is fun and people do this recreation but you would never say it is designed for use in this way. You take the person and responsibility out of the equation by saying they are only designed to kill.

Calm down champ, I'm not blaming your guns. I'm saying that any Joe fuckwad shouldn't be able to buy a device that gives them automatic weapon capabilities. Tell me you at least agree with that?

Also if Trucks had no other primary purpose for most people besides potential murder tools, I'd say we should at least implement some smart rules regarding them. Trucks get a pass because they're basically a necessity for society as we know it to function-- the risk of its use as a murder tool is a calculated acceptance we all agree to live with.

You seem to have this mindset that guns are just as needed in life as trucks somehow? Sorry, your shooting range permit is not as important in society than a CDL. You don't need 40 rifles the same way you need an automobile to get to work in the morning.

Do you need the current status quo so badly regarding guns that you feel the occasional mass murder is acceptable? That we should continue this transaction of allowing things like automatic weapon mods and bump stocks, paid with the cost of human lives every so often?

I'm all for target shooting, plinking, hunting, competition, and home defense. I just think we can manage to enjoy all those while still being reasonable about how we exchange weapons. I truly don't understand how people like you think it'd be impossible to maintain those hobbies after any sort of gun legislation takes affect.

Is an auto weapon mod ban really going to ruin the hobby you love?

If he used a automatic weapon he didn't get it legally. So how is a law banning automatic weapons gonna stop people who don't follow gun laws to begin with? Second amendment is not for hobbies or hunting. If you read it carefully it actually to allow the people stop the government from be coming a tyranny. They will probably take away bump stocks because he probably used a AR with a bumpstock. If you think taking away guns makes you more safe that's simply not true. Statistics show that places where gun control is the toughest like Chicago and NYC this is where most crime and the least safe. So if you think that some how the government is going make everything alright and make you safe again, fine. I just caution you to think twice. Once you get the point to where they are taking away rights that YOU care about you will have very few tools protect yourself and your family at that point. If you believe Bumpstocks shouldn't be sold I can kind of compromise with you there. However, if you think that's the last gun law the powers that be will want to make you are truly foolish. If the US or any other country could take all the guns away from there people they would do so in a heart beat.

I'm seriously at a loss as to why you think anyone here wants to take away your guns.

I get the slippery slope argument and all, but that's all it is. People said Obama was surely going to take all the guns in some sort of 2nd amendment apocalypse-- if that didn't happen why do you think anything like it ever would?

Also, this is like saying the nuclear bomb proliferation shouldn't be blamed for potential nuclear war. They'd get the nuclear bombs somewhere, eventually if they don't already have it.

Yeah, maybe-- but, in this analogy, what the fuck are we doing making it easier and easier for them? Should we start handing out nuclear bomb designs and enriched uranium to various countries, because they're just going to get access to it somehow eventually anyways?

It's a ridiculous argument. Provide less food to a fat kid and he loses weight. You're arguing the opposite-- that we should give him as much food as he wants and treat his "mental problems" instead?

If you take all the guns away people will magically stop killing themselves? In case you haven't noticed recently people can just hijack a truck and drive it into a crowd of people. If you take away guns criminals are still gonna get them because they don't give a shit about these laws. Please lets not compare guns to nukes that's a little dramatic even for my taste.

Please read what I wrote again. You clearly missed the point entirely.

Says the guy comparing guns to nuclear devices and fat kids with eating disorders.

Do you understand the difference between comparison and analogy? It sure doesn't seem like it.

Go take a time out, champ. You're starting to lose your edge.

So you're disputing that a gun's main purpose is to kill? It's not even dual use. All it can do is shoot projectiles at targets. Just like a hammer is designed to deliver an impact on a target, but a hammer has multiple non-lethal uses and killing things isn't its main purpose.

Unless everyone who buys a gun is planning on killing someone I would assume that guns main purpose is self defense.

Hmm, okay. Might just be my European mindset, but if I wanted to defend myself, I'd buy pepper spray. I don't usually have to defend myself with lethal force as the worst case I'd encounter on the streets would be large knives.

The guy used a bump stock to make a AR semi-auto into much deadlier weapon. No real reason for bump stock. So I def agree with you on some level of gun control. I just don't think it will magically get rid of mass shootings.

Yah, of course it won't. Definitely not with so many guns in the general population and with the current mindset.

But I don't see the point of being allowed to own AK-47s and the such. Why not ban anything other than guns and hunting rifles and let the government buy back everything else? Or just mandate that everything apart from guns/hunting rifles has to be stored securely at gun ranges with 2+ keys needed to retrieve and required to stay on that property.

Not many people own AKs. I don't think that the 2nd amendment would ever be outdated. It's in any governments own interest to try to become bigger and bigger. I agree that no one should own 10+ rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo. Handguns with 30 round clips and crazy shit like that.I see your points where guns could be from another more primitive time. But by saying a person can't have gun on there own property like a shotgun is good for home defense. You are kinda saying to them if you get attacked robbed they don't have the right to defend yourself. Cops are great but they can't be everywhere at once. You would be depending on them to get to you in time which is not always possible. Like in PR and Texas there has been looting but the news don't want to mention it. Hows a cop gonna help you when he can't even get to you. When the electricity is off and the stores aren't open people can get uncivilized real fast. If I could press a button and remove every gun on the planet I would press it, no problem. We just don't live in a world where that is possible.

Well, first of all - thanks for engaging in discussion. We actually agree on some points.

Where would you draw the line between weapons that actually have a use in self defence and weapons that haven't? I think handguns and pistols should be exempt because they have a use as self defense weapons, hunting rifles and shotguns because they have a use in hunting. Considering the conditions and reality in the US, you should be able to keep those at home. Everything else, selective fire rifles, extended mags, etc should be kept at the gun range.

For the (imo quite outlandish) scenario that shit hits the fan in a way that government collapses to a point where it can't enforce this (basic) gun control anymore, that should be more than enough to clear any zombies in your path to the gun range where you can retrieve your heavier weapons.

My idea was more about social control/responsibility being facilitated by laws. If you were required to interact with other people because they have a responsibility for keeping you and your heavier guns safe at the gun range, they might be able to spot when someone becomes dangerous to others or themselves. More failsafes, basically. Still not perfect protection, but I think it might be a good balance between individual rights and trying to get spree killings under control. There would still be gun violence, but at least you'd have an upper limit on the number of people someone kills in a spree, so to speak.

Again, my perspective is different, considering I'm in a country where you just don't assume that someone you run into on the street could pull a gun on you. Government is stable enough and has enough fail safes that I don't expect a collapse. No regular natural disasters (except for occasional flooding) that disrupt infrastructure for more than a few days.

Yeah. It's called the 2nd amendment. No more needs to be said. It is no less defensible than the other rights in the Bill of Rights.

I would rather see how you rationalize control of guns.

http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193?page=2

More people die falling from less than 10 feet than die to guns.

You are implying that 58 people dead today is somehow a drop in the bucket of how many are killed by other means.

Are you for banning Falling? Cars? Smoking? Medicine? Aging?

If you say no to any of those, it is you who isn't rational.

Guns are one of the best deterrents of suffering in the world. They equalize the strength difference between men and women, give the common man power over his government, and teach people the value and responsibility of power.

How you think it is rational to ban them, when they don't even account for 1% of all deaths, on the grounds that they can cause death, when I know you don't support banning those things which cause even more deaths, is simply delusional.

Calm down shooter, nobody mentioned taking away your guns. Obama isn't back to retract the 2nd amendment.

I do find it interesting how you immediately retorted with the 2nd amendment? Can you show me the part of the constitution that gives you the inalienable right to automatic assault weapons? That must include the full auto mods this guy used. How about suppressors, are those included in the Bill of Rights?

Are you sure it's a good idea to allow anyone and everyone indiscriminate access to effectively automatic weapons? Because we don't even allow that but that's what you're arguing for.

Mass shooting? Mass killing is more important. The tool used is irrelevant which is my point. The Nice truck attack killed more people and no gun was used.

If you want to use that line of reasoning for the 2nd amendment, you also need to apply it to the 1st amendment. Is text speech? What about thought? "the right to bear arms" does not limit the type of arms at all. It does not specify which means it does not limit. If you limit that, what makes you think the 1st amendment can't also be so limited? Be careful what precedent you set.

You talk about stopping mass shootings as if that will actually have an impact at all on the number of people killed violently. It won't. We have proof of this. The only solution to preventing Mass killings by any means is to strengthen the bonds of the community, not rob people of their rights when they themselves are not a threat to society.

"Also, can you list me what you consider the most important things needed in order to carry out a mass shooting? Just curious."

All you need to kill dozens of people is the will to do it and the person with the will to do it. The tool is irrelevant. The problem is that we have people who are willing to take the lives of their fellow Americans by any means necessary.

I know what you want me to say. "You need a gun". Duh, you can't "shoot" without a gun, but since when is a gun needed to kill people? Since when is my right to bear a gun of any type responsible for someone else' decision to maliciously kill dozens of innocent people?

Whether you like my post or agree with it. I care about all of you. I want your life and your children's lives to be free and happy and devoid of violence. To do that, they will have to defend their happiness from evil. They need guns to do it. It's the only tool we have to make "all men equal" a reality.

I only ask that people look at the real root of this problem- a heavily radicalized and divided population. The rhetoric thrown around politically now a days, the animosity each side has for one another is what causes these mass killings. That is where we should focus our efforts. People are what kill people with violence. They have always, for our entire history, found a way to kill eachother. Guns being invented changed nothing other than giving the weak a means to compete with the strong. That should be something everyone can agree upon. Before guns we were ruled by thuggery not thought.

If you want to use that line of reasoning for the 2nd amendment, you also need to apply it to the 1st amendment. Is text speech? What about thought? "the right to bear arms" does not limit the type of arms at all. It does not specify which means it does not limit. If you limit that, what makes you think the 1st amendment can't also be so limited? Be careful what precedent you set.

Do you know what a slippery slope fallacy is? I wasn't going to mention it in regards to the 2nd amendment, but are you actually trying to say that by implementing any sort of gun laws we're threatening the first amendment as we know it? Please think about how much of a stretch that is. Even if it was true this was somehow the intent, which we don't know-- this is just a speculative hunch on your part, there's nothing stopping republicans from preventing it from going that far. Why is any sort of reasoning regarding guns off the table due to this threat when your political party is literally in full control of its extent?

You talk about stopping mass shootings as if that will actually have an impact at all on the number of people killed violently. It won't. We have proof of this. The only solution to preventing Mass killings by any means is to strengthen the bonds of the community, not rob people of their rights when they themselves are not a threat to society.

What proof? I keep hearing that there's proof that guns have no coorelation to the amount of violence caused by a perpetrator, but I've never been shown it. How credible is this proof? Is this a study, or what?

Ask any military officer about the effectiveness of a pistol compared to an automatic machine gun, emplaced in a mounted position while defending an embassy. None of them are going to say that the effectiveness, the potential body count in this analogy, is going to be equal let alone similar. Where did you get this idea that guns don't affect the potential number of people killed when it's extremely obvious that just a more effective gun will do that exact same thing?

All you need to kill dozens of people is the will to do it and the person with the will to do it. The tool is irrelevant. The problem is that we have people who are willing to take the lives of their fellow Americans by any means necessary.

I know what you want me to say. "You need a gun". Duh, you can't "shoot" without a gun, but since when is a gun needed to kill people? Since when is my right to bear a gun of any type responsible for someone else' decision to maliciously kill dozens of innocent people?

Why is the tool irrelevant? In order for someone to commit such a mass murder, they have to go through certain steps. They have to build up the 'courage' to do it, they have to plan how they're going to do it, and they have to acquire the tools to execute that plan. Affecting those first to is non-trivial. I get the concept of trying to "strengthen the bonds of the community" and make people less likely to act out like this, but functionally how the hell do you expect to accomplish that? That is such a huge unknown territory of social change that I really don't think it's possible to purposefully influence in the first place.

So what does that leave us with? Affecting the tools available to the perpetrators. Do you remember the scene in Pulp Fiction where Bruce Willis is in the pawn shop looking for a weapon? Every potential weapon has a different amount of effectiveness, and therefore each has a different upper limit of how much damage can be done in a certain amount of time. Yes, knives can cause mass murders, but while an assailant might be able to kill 5 people in a minute using a knife, that same assailant could probably murder 100 with an automatic machine gun.

So that brings us back to my main point: what purpose do civilians have for amassing such a large arsenal of guns and ammo? and then considering that purpose, is that 'right' really so important to us that we shouldn't screen them or require a license or whatever we decide is best, for them to do so? I don't know the solution so don't take that last thing I said to heart, I'm just trying to say that something needs to be done.

Whether you like my post or agree with it. I care about all of you. I want your life and your children's lives to be free and happy and devoid of violence. To do that, they will have to defend their happiness from evil. They need guns to do it. It's the only tool we have to make "all men equal" a reality.

That's completely fine. Anybody can accomplish this with a few weapons and a few boxes of ammo. Again, a person only has two arms. My whole thing in this is that I don't understand how a civilian could have a legitimate need to stock up and acquire such a huge amount of potential destruction. And that begs the question as to why we aren't at least pondering why they need it and whether or not they can be trusted with it in the first place.

I only ask that people look at the real root of this problem- a heavily radicalized and divided population. The rhetoric thrown around politically nowadays, the animosity each side has for one another is what causes these mass killings. That is where we should focus our efforts. People are what kill people with violence. They have always, for our entire history, found a way to kill each other. Guns being invented changed nothing other than giving the weak a means to compete with the strong. That should be something everyone can agree upon. Before guns we were ruled by thuggery not thought.

I completely understand the ideology at play here. Truly. I have a similar issue with politicians trying to change the internet as we know it with the whole net neutrality thing going on. The main thing I disagree on however is that guns are not a catalyst for violence. Hell, our country is arguably the way it is today in part because we americans invented a more effective weapon with the rifled barrel than the British had at the time.

You're absolutely right that violence has never changed at its core. But I insist that things are much different due to their modern level of effectiveness. The Boston Massacre only involved 5 deaths, likely because flintlocks limited how effective they could be. Today, if the exact same situation was acted out with modern guns, that number would be in the hundreds. Like I've said, other countries don't have quite the same critical issue we have, even though they do have the occasional unfortunate tragedy. A European is perfectly capable of committing plenty of violence if planned out and executed properly. In America however, that plan is already 90% completed already: just buy a gun and point it at people. It's too easy. We make it far too easy-- you can literally, on a whim, go buy a gun just to immediately shoot up a mall with it. No questions asked. Hell, you could probably then return it to the gun shop like nothing happened. I'm not saying we should restrict someone's ability to buy a gun in that way, but at the very least we have no reason why we can't limit things that allow massacres to happen. There's no reason why we can't limit someone's ability to effectively wage a Rambo-style military assault against a crowd of people.

In our history, average citizens have never been able to hold as much destructive power as a modern citizen today in the USA can. The 2nd amendment was not written with fully-automatic, silenced, belt-fed guns carried by people with 2,000 rounds of ammunition in mind. That would be about the equivalent of an entire division of their troops back then. The constitution is great but it was purposefully written to be adapted to the times, unquestionably relying on it in this way to direct our actions on modern issues like this is not very smart. That said, I'm not saying we should exclude certain things from civilians, just that they have so much killing potential that we need some sort of rational process to at least make them harder to fall into the wrong hands.

I'll leave you with this: something needs to change. I don't know what it is, but it needs to be done and it needs to be actually effective. Leaving out the 'gun' part of that equation is not productive if we're trying to implement reasonable laws that will prevent massacres such as this. Something can be worked out that will make everyone happy, but the first thing we need to do is to be able to discuss it in the open without such vitrole and expectations of ulterior motives.

Either way, thanks for the good conversation. It's nice to have an actual discussion for once instead of being called an antifa liberal cuck over and over or whatever.

I too appreciate the discussion.

I'm not for everyone having access to all types of weapons. A pocket nuke in everyone's hands would be bad for everyone. I agree. I'm not trying to argue that.

My point is that we have to be very careful about where we draw the lines. "More gun control" is not a smart position, and I'm not suggesting that is your position. My main post was simply a general case for why the core argument of gun control does not address the fundamental issue with these types of attacks.

We won't see fewer deaths or less violence with more gun control. I linked to many such studies and I've not yet seen a compelling case where gun control made anybody safer. I've not seen it, and I can't find it. If it were true and common knowledge then I'd have the exact opposite position.

I disagree that a pistol is adequate. As you said, the base power of weapons has been elevated. The entire point to an armed citizenry is that they can compete with any authority hovering over them. If their power becomes too far removed, it is the same as having no power at all. If the person breaking into your house has tools and capabilities you cannot legally compete against, then you are helpless.

I don't claim to know where that line is drawn, but I know that I'd rather have the people around me armed than not. I would hope the virtues of an armed population are obvious.

You ask for proof. I linked to you many such studies. Furthermore, guns and crime are correlated - inversely. Meaning more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means less crime. So there is a correlation, but it is the exact opposite of what gun control activists scream constantly.

Only the border states, with high gun ownership, defy that trend and the reasons for that are perfectly clear if you look at the data. They have to deal with a statistically significant amount of crime unrelated to the factors involved in such studies. If you account for that, and you look at the rates of crime before and after gun control legislation, the results clearly and concisely indicate more guns== less crime.

I don't think you're a libtard for sure. I'm genuinely interested in the facts, but the facts don't tell me more gun control matters. Every sensible piece of information I can find, modern or historical, suggests that guns are essential to maintain democracy, reduce suffering, and keep freedoms in tact.

I only ask that, if you are sensible about it, you acknowledge my right to bear arms the way I recognize your right to speak freely about taking such rights away. It is a two way road.

It is indeed a slippery slope. If you think the 1st amendment isn't being categorized the way the 2nd amendment has been for decades I advise you to just look at what is going on. The censorship, the labels, the many speech laws going into effect in 1st world democracies around the world. It is shocking, and guns, I think, are more relevant and needed in the populace's hands today than ever before.

Thank you for the discussion. Be safe and live well!

I must have missed the studies you linked; I'm having a few of these conversations simultaneously and might not have got around to reading them. I'll just assume though they're true in the way you interpret them for the sake of a clear argument.

I think the main issue at the core of our differences is two trains of thought: I'm looking at it historically, in the sense of how other countries compare to ours and how they try to prevent these things from happening. I also understand that far end of a solution is basically your 2nd amendment nightmare, but I see no reason why there can't be a perfectly fine, effective, compromise.

From what I gather of your opinion, you look at it mostly from our own insular experience with guns and crime. Which I appreciate, it's perfectly reasonable as long as the studies are sound and interpreted properly. The thing that scares people like me though is that this is new ground. The idea that more guns would solve this is almost experimental in a way. I don't want to turn this more political than it needs to be, but it reminds me of policies like "trickle down" econ that are, in the kindest way I can say it, still a point of contention and unclear effectiveness decades after being put into place. Maybe it still will work at advertised at some point, but nobody can honestly know whether it will or not-- just like I can't say making all guns illegal won't solve gun crime and like you can't say giving everyone guns would do the same.

So effectively, we have to try something to know whether it works or not. My argument would be that other countries like Canada, from what I understand of the majority of their law(besides Quebec, that place is nuts), allow you to buy and own guns very reasonably. They also have no problem with civilian militia either, I believe. A lot of people find comfort in knowing that it works great for others so it must work for us, which is a whole debate in itself that I immediately concede as probably wrong for such a crazy place as the USA

I also understand that you have to give efforts like you suggested 100% effort for them to truly work. A half-measure isn't going to work, and unfortunately for us both those seem to be Washington's specialty.

I don't like how so many people are so sure that their idea about this is the only possible good solution, and refuse to even discuss other possibilities. At the very least this conversation we're having is the first step. Now we just need to get everyone else in on it too...

"I must have missed the studies you linked; I'm having a few of these conversations simultaneously and might not have got around to reading them. I'll just assume though they're true in the way you interpret them for the sake of a clear argument."

No worries. They are there though. I even linked a pro gun control study that has pretty fair data as a counter argument. I then elaborated on why it's not entirely reliable (not necessarily to the fault of the authors).

"I think the main issue at the core of our differences is two trains of thought: I'm looking at it historically, in the sense of how other countries compare to ours and how they try to prevent these things from happening. I also understand that far end of a solution is basically your 2nd amendment nightmare, but I see no reason why there can't be a perfectly fine, effective, compromise."

That's the thing, other countries do not prevent these things. Europe has the record even after sunday for mass murder with a gun and guns are almost universally banned over there. In the absence of guns, people find other ways, such as acid, trucks, bombs (made from household items you can get at a grocery store) etc. Many of these alternative methods have higher kill counts than any mass murder with guns. So, guns clearly don't cause more crime.

Secondly, overall violent crime in Europe is rising rapidly while in the USA it has been steadily falling for decades except for a bump in recent years. This is despite gun sales for the past few decades continuously setting records. I can't link you sources atm due to work, but just look them up. I will link them to you later if I get the chance.

The point being that the grass is NOT greener in other countries, not at all. Sweden, for example, currently has the highest rates of rape of any 1st world nation atm. That is not indicative of a healthy society. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

This is Mr Sander's supposed paradise model.

Now the US doesn't have a great record on that study either, the variability amongst countries should tell you that guns aren't playing a role in that particular case.

France, with stricter gun laws than california currently has the record for highest kill count by gun of a 1st world country. Here is their law overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_France

We are a safe nation. Just because we have the most "gun related violence" doesn't mean we are the most violent. We aren't. We are very very safe relative to other nations. It's just that when violence happens, guns are more likely involved. That makes perfect sense, but does not indicate a gun problem. It's a crime problem.

"From what I gather of your opinion, you look at it mostly from our own insular experience with guns and crime. Which I appreciate, it's perfectly reasonable as long as the studies are sound and interpreted properly. The thing that scares people like me though is that this is new ground. The idea that more guns would solve this is almost experimental in a way. I don't want to turn this more political than it needs to be, but it reminds me of policies like "trickle down" econ that are, in the kindest way I can say it, still a point of contention and unclear effectiveness decades after being put into place. Maybe it still will work at advertised at some point, but nobody can honestly know whether it will or not-- just like I can't say making all guns illegal won't solve gun crime and like you can't say giving everyone guns would do the same"

I disagree that this is a new problem. The only problem I see is that people are less responsible for their own safety than ever before. History will show you that a gun was man's best friend besides a horse for most of our history. It is recent that we have outsourced our protection to police, and the results are not inspiring.

Violence has always been there, and always will. The issue as I see it is that whenever these types of attacks happen, we say society is guilty instead of the individual. I disagree with that. Right now there are more guns than people in this country, and yet these events are quite rare. Furthermore, not to be cold, but you can't even tell year by year when a mass shooting took place because it's effect on total death rates is almost negligible. More guns simply has zero correlation with more deaths or violence. The only death by firearm statistic that is shown to possibly have a correlation with access to firearms is suicide, but that's a separate issue.

"So effectively, we have to try something to know whether it works or not. My argument would be that other countries like Canada, from what I understand of the majority of their law(besides Quebec, that place is nuts), allow you to buy and own guns very reasonably. They also have no problem with civilian militia either, I believe. A lot of people find comfort in knowing that it works great for others so it must work for us, which is a whole debate in itself that I immediately concede as probably wrong for such a crazy place as the USA"

Canada has some benefits we don't. USA has one of the most violent places on earth as it's southern neighbor, Mexico. I know Mexico has become a political issue so I'm not trying to stir the pot, but let's just say it causes significant damage to both our economy and our society through border violence. I didn't realize how bad it was until I researched it last year. MUCH of our violence comes from border related spill over. The drug war is fought as much on USA soil as Mexican soil and that is reflected in our statistics.

That being said, you are right that Canada is not nearly as firearm adverse as other nations, yet their crime isn't a big deal. So hopefully you can agree with me that the presence of guns is a fuzzy contributor at best.

As a side note. The point to a militia is that it is not tethered to the authority governing it. That was the intention behind the articles of confederation and the bill of rights. Our militia is to be the people, and they are to be independent from the military. Our government plays no role in the militia. By definition they cannot. The militia is not an army, it is a protection against the army.

When the constitution was written, they were under legal authority of the British. Their army was the British army. It was the non loyal militia that overthrew them and established the USA which is why they put so much weight into the militia being a counter balance. (taking deep breath).

"Another thought I just had: an idea like yours has no failsafe. If it doesn't work like expected or maybe works fine in one regard but causes other major issues for police or something, there's no going back to even our current pathetic state of affairs. It's an all-in move and the safety of the country is on the line. Even when a scientist does a dangerous chemical reaction he knows will work fine from personal experience, he still is terrified of the potential danger if something goes wrong. And we don't even have that experience to reassure us. The stake is too great for me to feel good about such an idea. Can you see why this terrifies me?"

Yes I do understand your fear. Thing is, I believe in our people. I really do. If you want some comfort you should read the constitution and articles of confederation (I'm not suggesting you are uneducated in them, only that the details often overlooked give you insight into the great wisdom of the 2nd amendment). They were the most brilliant people who knew precisely what they were doing. The strength and greatness of our country isn't a coincidence. We are the failsafe against tyranny, against evil. The founding fathers built a country on that principle, and I now know why. (I wasn't so thankful for the 2nd amendment as I am now until about 2 years ago).

The failsafe, my friend, is you and me. Together, as a society, as a democracy, we control this country. We always hope that civility will keep it together, but the guns were given to us intentionally incase we had to fight for our rights.

Remember, if someone wanted to harm you or your family, the only person who can stop them is you, and your success rests on how equivalent, or excessive, your capability is to theirs. The police will never prevent harm from you or your family. They will be too late, they will do to little. This is a sad reality, but it is reality.

"I also understand that you have to give efforts like we suggested 100% effort for them to truly work. A half-measure isn't going to work, and unfortunately for us both those seem to be Washington's specialty. I don't like how so many people are so sure that their idea about this is the only possible good solution, and refuse to even discuss other possibilities. At the very least this conversation we're having is the first step. Now we just need to get everyone else in on it too.."

Hey, kudos to you. I fully agree. I am for whatever is done based on the real facts and with 100% good will and constitutional spirit in mind. I'd not claim to have all the answers. I can only tell you that I see great wisdom in the constitution, and I believe in it, our people, and you to together find the right answer.

You know what, I think we've actually come to a good common ground here. Everything you've said comes across as completely reasonable. We might disagree in some areas but I feel we absolutely understand each other, and that's truly what matters most in these situations. It's a great (yet rare) thing to see online. I think you'd agree that at the bottom of this is the idea that we're two faces of the same coin. The metaphor of 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' politics both being equally needed to keep the plane flying level comes to mind (i don't know if that's where the 'wing' labels came from but i like my interpretation of it regardless.)

A lot of people behind us, on both sides, are so incredibly judgemental and bigoted (in it's literal definition) towards people who show even a slight hint of being on the 'other side'. I'm guilty of it too, like how I just automatically assume anyone wearing a MAGA hat is probably not worth talking to, or how I feel literal disgust when I hear Trump about to talk-- even before he says anything. I remember many people, even my own family, doing the exact same thing with Obama and I just couldn't understand them at the time. Now that I'm doing it, I have plenty of rationalizations for why it's not quite the same thing even though it absolutely is. The end result is the same, and it's absolutely not productive in the slightest-- yet I see people doing the same thing constantly, mostly in much worse manifestations.

It's like politics has become (or maybe it's always been this way?) a national reality drama TV show, but with fans as rabid as the NFL. It plays out like a Disney high school drama, and each American has their own interpretation of who are the villains and the heroes. I could go to TVTropes and write out a long list of ridiculous tropes that American politicians, the corporations who rely on them, and the media act out on a daily basis. And we, as the american citizen, just eat that shit up, accepting it almost mindlessly. The one thing it does not seem to be about is actual policy. Nobody wants to actually talk about how specifically to get things done, it's like they just want to root for symbols of political success for their 'side' regardless of its actual contents (the recent ACA repeal bill comes to mind). Even the people who insist their political actions are based on their love for the country and its traditions come off as disingenuous when they disregard traditions that don't fall in line with their modern political views.

The thing that seems to always come first is which 'team' you're on. Where you live, the political affiliations of your friends and family, etc-- basically the environment you live in. All that comes before anything that could actually be constructive.

I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, in the sense that I refuse to play into all the political gamesmanship that goes on and just support what I think is most reasonable for everyone as a whole. I don't consider that too crazy, yet I've been called both a liberal cuck and a neo-nazi. If I'm talking to a liberal and I say anything that could be labeled as sympathetic to right-wing ideas, I'm immediately looked down upon. It doesn't matter if it's actually reasonable or not, all that matters is that that I'm "punching left". As for how that plays out when talking to the 'alt-right', just look at the ridiculous things people have said to me in this thread alone. It usually either ends immediately with a "libcuck" or results in a ridiculous psuedo-debate where the person refuses to concede that even a single thing I say might be reasonable-- either way, almost always absolutely counter-productive. Those experiences leave me feeling like I have no 'true' affiliation. I don't have a subreddit to go to where I'll find a bunch of people I know will always agree with what I say and only feed me things I want to hear-- and you know what, maybe that's a fucking good thing.

That all said, I take solace in the fact that I found a little island here where all of that didn't seem to exist for a moment. It gives me hope that maybe things aren't so bad. So thanks for the great little debate here. Frankly /r/conspiracy was the last place I expected to find such a decently intelligent conversation.

Hell if you ever want to shoot the shit sometime about anything, I'd be happy to kill more time on another similarly productive argument.

"You know what, I think we've actually come to a good common ground here. Everything you've said comes across as completely reasonable. We might disagree in some areas but I feel we absolutely understand each other, and that's truly what matters most in these situations. It's a great (yet rare) thing to see online. I think you'd agree that at the bottom of this is the idea that we're two faces of the same coin. The metaphor of 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' politics both being equally needed to keep the plane flying level comes to mind (i don't know if that's where the 'wing' labels came from but i like my interpretation of it regardless.)"

Thank you for the kind words. You are right about the balance. That's what makes democracies ( and representative republics) so successful, they give everyone a voice and let the average of all those voices become the one voice of change. Atleast in theory.

I am glad that you were able to see through my admittedly combative first post to realize there are hidden truths and virtues about yours and my own right to bear arms.

"A lot of people behind us, on both sides, are so incredibly judgemental and bigoted (in it's literal definition) towards people who show even a slight hint of being on the 'other side'. I'm guilty of it too, like how I just automatically assume anyone wearing a MAGA hat is probably not worth talking to, or how I feel literal disgust when I hear Trump about to talk-- even before he says anything. I remember many people, even my own family, doing the exact same thing with Obama and I just couldn't understand them at the time. Now that I'm doing it, I have plenty of rationalizations for why it's not quite the same thing even though it absolutely is. The end result is the same, and it's absolutely not productive in the slightest-- yet I see people doing the same thing constantly, mostly in much worse manifestations."

So true. I too get caught up in it. I try to be respectful, but sometimes I do get frustrated with what gets thrown around. We probably would frustrate eachother for certain positions, but hey, we are each our own person shaped by our own experiences.

It comes as no surprise I'm sure to you, but I do lean pro Trump, but I also disagree with him on many issues. His stance on medicine is one example. Thing is, I understand the people who are suffering and why they like him. I thought he was going to be an air headed kardashian type until I realized he was resonating with real people and real problems. That's why he won. Like him or not, he is democracy at work. The people who elected him have been screaming for a while, but nobody heard them. You and I may have our opinions on that, but they finally had enough.

"It's like politics has become (or maybe it's always been this way?) a national reality drama TV show, but with fans as rabid as the NFL. It plays out like a Disney high school drama, and each American has their own interpretation of who are the villains and the heroes. I could go to TVTropes and write out a long list of ridiculous tropes that American politicians, the corporations who rely on them, and the media act out on a daily basis. And we, as the american citizen, just eat that shit up, accepting it almost mindlessly. The one thing it does not seem to be about is actual policy. Nobody wants to actually talk about how specifically to get things done, it's like they just want to root for symbols of political success for their 'side' regardless of its actual contents (the recent ACA repeal bill comes to mind). Even the people who insist their political actions are based on their love for the country and its traditions come off as disingenuous when they disregard traditions that don't fall in line with their modern political views."

I think our world has become smaller due to the internet and other tech. Politics may or may not have changed much, but the nature of how information spreads and how it impacts people has changed indeed. You are right that policy has been on the back burner, but to be fair, Trump, despite his sometimes terrible way with words, really honed in on the policy aspect. He spoke the hard truths that none of his opponents wanted to hear, but his voters dropped to their knees with tears of joy when they finally did. I remember I got on board the "trump train" about august. His rallies man. They were incredible. Nothing like what the media portrayed. He was really resonating with people. Never seen anything like that. Lines miles long in bitter mid-western winter temperatures. You gotta at least nod to that as being something.

Even so as you say, our government, and politicians almost care nothing about policy. The proposed ACA replacements were terrible. See, I don't care what direction healthcare goes so long as it does what it needs to do - make healthcare affordable, sustainable, and the highest quality it can be. What is that? It's really hard to say considering both sides seem to be completely compromised by insurance/ big pharma lobbyists.

I'm a numbers guy, and they tell me neither the ACA nor the replacements would work. I don't see why we can't try a true free market system for a while. Literally every other industry is more free market and less dysfunctional. Slap some restrictions like no bias against pre-existing conditions, cross state insurance and I think we're at a good start. Hell, we can do this scientifically and test modular components to see what works.

I am not loyal to a party. I can't say I lean either way. Perhaps I'm more conservative now a days, but the republicans(moderates anyways) are as terrible than the far left.

"I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, in the sense that I refuse to play into all the political gamesmanship that goes on and just support what I think is most reasonable for everyone as a whole. I don't consider that too crazy, yet I've been called both a liberal cuck and a neo-nazi. If I'm talking to a liberal and I say anything that could be labeled as sympathetic to right-wing ideas, I'm immediately looked down upon. It doesn't matter if it's actually reasonable or not, all that matters is that that I'm "punching left". As for how that plays out when talking to the 'alt-right', just look at the ridiculous things people have said to me in this thread alone. It usually either ends immediately with a "libcuck" or results in a ridiculous psuedo-debate where the person refuses to concede that even a single thing I say might be reasonable-- either way, almost always absolutely counter-productive. Those experiences leave me feeling like I have no 'true' affiliation. I don't have a subreddit to go to where I'll find a bunch of people I know will always agree with what I say and only feed me things I want to hear-- and you know what, maybe that's a fucking good thing."

Sure I get that too. Damn, I'm not trying to compete, but you should atleast pretend to be a Trump supporter for a day and see what that's like. lol. Still, I don't want to fight fire with fire. I want to put that fire out. I'd like to see us as a society rise above the meaningless bickering and start focusing on bigger issues. There is so much we could achieve and do if we stopped trying to govern each other's lives and squander our great resources and wealth on empty Trojan horses.

"That all said, I take solace in the fact that I found a little island here where all of that didn't seem to exist for a moment. It gives me hope that maybe things aren't so bad. So thanks for the great little debate here. Frankly /r/conspiracy was the last place I expected to find such a decently intelligent conversation."

Haha well, I'd hope that r/conspiracy would be one of the better places to find open minds. It's their slogan after all. I'm surprised it has maintained itself with all the negative push back, but this is one of my favorite reddit pages besides "The_Donald" ( take a deep breath!)

"Hell if you ever want to shoot the shit sometime about anything, I'd be happy to kill more time on another similarly productive argument."

Yeah man sure. I had a great convo with you. Agree or disagree, discussion is good. That is what's so great about our freedom to speak freely. When thought flows freely, the truth will always be set free. People now a days are so reclusive they forget that it's ok to disagree and not hate other people or atleast think less of them because they live a different way.

Peace to you my friend! Have a good night!

So my mother was watching The View this morning, and it caught my interest because the entire show was a long interview with John McCain. Made me think about this convo we had and I wanted to see what you thought. I'm not sure what you think of him as a politician, but if you get a chance to watch it somehow I'd highly recommend it since he touched on quite of bit of things we both talked about here weeks ago. I'm sure it's not online quite yet but if I find a link to it i'll be sure to post it.

I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it personally. What I can say is that I find McCain a detestable traitor to his party and country at this point. Atleast the Democrats are unified in their ideology. McCain just pretends to be conservative despite being nothing of the sort.

I'm not implying that he can't say something that is true. I'm sure there are things I'd agree with him on, though few and far between. His hatred of Trump is obvious and that taints his objectivity. It also looks like he may have his hand in illegally promoting knowingly false information to the FBI to slander/incarcerate Trump over the fictitious Russia collusion.

He's likely behind the Dossier that's recently (finally) being covered by the MSM. He did atleast act as the one to give it to the FBI.

Actually that's a myth, if you did 10 seconds of googling you would see that for yourself. Vegas in particular has thousands.

No law against bump-stops. Do you think we need one?

There is a law against murdering people. If you don't care about that one then any lesser ones won't matter.

It might not matter to a criminal but it would keep store owners who like there house and nice lives from providing these things to people. If the only defense is criminals will still do it that's not going to be good enough. We regulated explosives for the same reason. In the wrong hand they can be more dangerous then the benefit they provide.

No that's not the only defense. That's just the relevant part in response to the post I was replying to. The most important reason is that I don't trust our government and I don't think we ever should. They should always fear a well armed populace. I'm even fine with fully automatic weapons being sold. You want something regulated, do thorough mandatory background checks and mental health screening. But most importantly regulate the media and how they are allowed to report on shooters. They basically glorify shooters by plastering their face 24/7 and fear mongering for weeks all just for profit, ensuring future copycats.

fully automatic weapons are legal in Nevada.

How much of the mind numbing TV is playing gun control content? I'm legitimately curious. I just got in an argument with someone over the answer to my question.

I wouldn't know. Television is horrible for the mind, so I avoid it like the plague.

Dicking about on the interweb isn't much better for the bonce.

I moved today, so I listened to NPR in the car all day...before we had any facts and they were reporting about 20 deaths they were talking about metal detectors in hotels.

they were talking about metal detectors in hotels.

That would work out well (/s) considering almost everyone has something metal that they put in their suitcases.

The Boston Bombing Military presence. Soldiers in tanks focusing guns at concerned children looking out the window 👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻

Lol. There was not one single soldier involved. And there damn sure wasn't a tank.

Show me the tanks. I'll wait

Close Enough?

That's just an APC. No tracks, no large caliber cannon, and it definitely wouldn't stand up to heavy sustained fire

I bet it would solve the problem......because it would be MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

(in fact that is how it went down in Australia)

People think legislation will solve everything and that criminals follow laws, which just boggles the mind.

Right. For this round of propaganda, I've taken to responding to legislation proponents with "Okay, special session passes legislation overnight. Now what?"

I am totally unsurprised at how many people haven't thought about it that far.

Now whichever types of guns which have been declared illegal are handed over to the police by their owners who are compensated by the federal government. Any time these type of guns are used in crime there is a large operation to find the weapon and the supply. Over time usage and therefore fatalities fall.

Now whichever types of guns which have been declared illegal are handed over to the police by their owners who are compensated by the federal government.

Which was super effective all the other times we've tried that, right? I'm sorry, but not everyone is an authoritarian that's going to snap to the moment an authority says to.

Can't buy guns? buy knives

Can't buy Knives? buy Acid

Can't buy Acid? By fertilizer with ammonia in it and then go to your local gas station and get some diesel fuel, mix the two together and you have ANFO, which is a high explosive and is what McVeigh used to blow up that building in Oklahoma City.

Well if you took away all the guns then this wouldn't happen or it wouldn't happen as often

Well if you took away all the guns

How old are you?

Australians may disagree. Legislation after a mass shooting there led to far fewer gun crimes afterwords. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

Also the shooter bought controlled guns.

like.

No one is trying to take your guns.

It's ironic that the conspiracy is that these events are false flags by the state to take your guns, but yet every time these massacres happen the pro-gun lobby gets stronger and sales increase.

There’s a whole subreddit devoted to that. But clearly you haven’t been on Twitter today.

Yes. A LOT of people want to take our guns. They want all of them, and the accessories. Don’t fucking kid yourself.

I would have to say the people that want all of them is pretty fringe. Most people just want regulation not total restriction.

It's piecemeal. One reasonable compromise after another, then in a few decades there is nothing left.

They want to regulate not to completely take them that will never happen and you know that. You are avoiding actual discussion on how to approach the issue

That the lie they fed to the AU public for years and years, and then rats orchestrated the fake hobart massacre.

I'm a liberal. I would like to have a conversation about what we as a society should do. While I want Americans to be able to have guns I also don't want events happening like this. I love the constitutions and have always believed that we need guys to prevent tyranny but I think we need to balance that with preventing terror. We need a good conversation of where the line should be.

point being tthat you're not trying to take everyone's guns.

Go to Australia and see what happened to the people who never thought their guns would be taken away.

They seem to be doing very well with it. I've seen more positive reviews and their gun crimes dropped.

But overall their violent crime rate went way up. It's almost as if people couldn't defend themselves against criminals.

During the 1990s, Australia was confronting a problem similar to the one that regularly confronts Americans: shooting incidents over the previous decade had left more than a hundred people dead, including the infamous Port Arthur massacre in April 1996 that saw one gunman wielding a semi-automatic rifle kill 35 people over the course of a single day (including 20 people with 29 bullets in about 90 seconds):

In 1996, Martin Bryant entered a café at the site of a historic penal colony at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

The 28-year-old ate lunch before pulling a semi-automatic rifle from his bag and embarking on a killing spree. By the time he was apprehended the next morning, 35 people were dead and 23 had been wounded. Bryant had become the worst mass-murderer in Australia’s history.

Australia had experienced mass shootings before, but the Port Arthur massacre shook the nation to its core. Bryant was later assessed to have the IQ of an 11-year-old. He told investigators that he’d paid cash for firearms at a local gun dealer. Shortly afterwards, John Howard, the new Australian prime minister, moved to enact nationwide gun law reform (a process complicated by the fact that the Australian national government had no control over gun ownership or use, so gun reform legislation had to be passed individually by all states and territories). Those reform efforts, known as the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), included two nationwide gun buybacks, voluntary surrenders, state gun amnesties, a ban on the importation of new automatic and semiautomatic weapons, the tightening of gun owner licensing, and the creation of uniform national standards for gun registration. Australia collected and destroyed an estimated 650,000 firearms (a reduction equivalent to the removal of about forty million guns from the United States), which reduced Australia’s firearms stock by around one-fifth.

In a peer-reviewed paper published by American Law and Economics Review 2012, researchers Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University found that in the decade following the NFA, firearm homicides (both suicides and intentional killings) in Australia had dropped significantly:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%]. Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates. While there is no doubt that firearms deaths in Australia have decreased substantially in the years since the implementation of the NFA, how much of that decrease is directly attributable to the NFA is still subject to debate. Much of that debate focuses on the fact that the gun death rate in Australia was already decreasing prior to the time the NFA was introduced:

For Australia, a difficulty with determining the effect of the law was that gun deaths were falling in the early 1990s. No study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall. Yet most studies generally assumed that they would have continued to drop without the NFA. Many studies still found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law. It’s also true that in both cases, the authors of studies cautioned that NFA-like plans wouldn’t necessarily achieve (and have not achieved) the same results in the United States, in large part because Australia’s geography makes it much easier to control the flow of arms into the country:

Several factors are important in assessing the extent to which the results from the Australian buyback can be extrapolated to other countries. Australian borders are more easily controlled than in countries that have land borders. In addition, Australia’s government in general and its policing and customs services in particular are highly organized and effective. The NFA also had an extremely high degree of political support and was quite competently executed. And the buyback was accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registration of firearms. These factors should be borne in mind in considering the extent to which the results from the Australian NFA might generalize to other countries. It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain. These factors did not apply to the Australian buyback, which was large, compulsory, and the guns on this island nation could not easily be replaced. For example, compared to the buyback of 650,000 firearms, annual imports after the law averaged only 30,000 per year, with many of these bought by law enforcement agencies. Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it’s undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It’s not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:

US gun deaths are generally about half what they were back in their peak in the 1990s. Many many more people own guns than they did back then. Cause and effect?

I'm not sure. The rates spiked in the 90's and have just came back down to "Normal". Even at half is that acceptable? Those rates also leveled out in the early 2000 before gun owner shipped spiked. So maybe more people with more guns causes less homicides. I think we need more data points to come to a conclusion about that. I"m 100% for armed civilians protecting themselves. I do we could do a much better job regulating the guns we have. Make sure all the owners of guns and each gun is tracked. Make any untraceable gun illegal.

The only problem with a gun registry is that every single time it has been used to register guns, eventually it was used to force people to turn them in. Example: https://imgur.com/1a62Ncb?r

Yeah I understand that. I'm ok with it. I worry more about red dawn situation where a invading force finds the list of Americans with guns. I think if we got to a place where regulation was written well enough that people liked and trusted in it that they would stop wanting to take guns away from people. I think there might be a sweet spot between liberty and authority that keeps people safe while making it harder on the bad actors. I dont think we'll eve stop everything but we can do better then we are.

r/NOWTTYG

What sub am I in rn, cus when I see shit like this I’m convinced this isn’t r/conspiracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

To anyone who says false flag attacks aren't a thing

Very interesting read.

Against the state of Cuba.

America didn't like Cuba. Call me shocked.

That's not the point...

The US military was going to attack Americans, inside the US, and blame Cuba for it so they could launch a war.

The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba.

Literally the second sentence. Try actually reading next time.

So America tried to commit despicable acts in an effort for them to wage a war on Cuba?

So they didn't like Cuba and were willing to kill their own citizens?

Call me shocked.

truth

Yeah, but its not a binary option between guns for everyone and take all the guns. After the truck attacks in Europe there was discussion on how to prevent future attacks of that nature, such as placing more bollards around pedestrian areas. I don't think people would be entirely opposed to having discussions on reducing risk while understanding that mass shootings will never be able to be fully mitigated.

Placing measures to try and stop mass shootings isn't taking away people's rights. You can be safe and still own guns. The vast majority of American's do.

And it wouldn't be unreasonable to have discussion on other forms of gun violence, such as suicide.

Yes, the vast majority of Americans can be safe with their guns. That still isn't an excuse for not having discussions on how to reduce risk. Clearly the solution, like I said, isn't the full extreme either way. Taking everyone's guns away isn't a solution, nor is letting everyone have all the guns one.

But there should be a discussion if we can learn anything, if we can study the events, if we can understand what causes these events, and then put measures in place that reduce the likelihood in a reasonable manner. That answer may be nothing and that would be okay.

I would find it likely that there will be enhanced security checks at these hotels from now on. Perhaps just the standard search/xray bags and luggage. That isn't a wrong thing to do. Will it help in future events? Literally impossible to know, but it will mitigate the risk of a known style of attack.

Wow, nice to see a rationale thought in here.

I live in Canada. While it is far from perfect, I think we have a good balance here when it comes to firearms.

I will state upfront that I don't own a gun so perhaps I have a bias, however at no point in my life did I wish I had a gun. I don't feel 'deprived' or that my life is in any added level of danger. In fact my death is likely to come by way of an incident that would not be preventable by a gun. I'm more worried about being hit by a car than an incident that would be preventable had I had a firearm.

Anyway... if I wanted a firearm I understand the process to be fairly simple but enough to deter a crime of passion due to the fact that I can't just go out and bring a firearm home today. There is a course and some other stuff that needs to be undertaken.

As a bowhunter, I sometimes wish I had a side piece, but I do have other means to protect myself in a close encounter with an animal. I carry bear spray and a fixed blade. The only thing that worries me would be an by a wild cat (cougar), however not only are these rare, it is my understanding a gun won't help me much against an animal that quietly stalks and attacks it's prey. I've thought about a hunting rifle, but I don't rely on hunting nearly enough for a primary source of food.

Anyway, I think the US could potentially benefit from tighter gun legislation. There doesn't need to be an outright ban, but removing the ability to own certain guns and tighter control over procurement might help.

Did I read correctly today that the Vegas shooter bought thousands of rounds not long before the shooting? Why are Americans allowed to buy so many bullets over such a short time frame. I recognize you can accumulate ammo over time regardless, but what need is there for a that much ammo. Idon't buy ammo here in Canada, but I understand that I would not be able to buy that much ammo over a short period of time.

The enemey, WHOEVER that may be, has big guns. If you ever want to stand a chance against the enemy, you better have big guns too.

Than I hope US citizens can buy S-400 SAMs to take out high altitude bombers and cruise missiles that drop VX nerve gas and that those systems are operating independently, maintained, tested, and manned outside of government control, but also trustworthy to the public.

One of my favorite quotes "speak softly and carry a big stick"

Don't forget about tyranny in this discussion, my friends. The right to bare and amass arms was put in place to allow us to defend ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic - not to protect our right to shooting sports.

I'm progun. I however am on the fence of gun laws. The original intention of the law was so the citizans could protect themselves from tyranny but now chemical and nucular weapons are a thing is this even possible anymore. The founding fathers couldn't of know the destructive power weapons would achieve. To fight our government at this point would take access to very destructive weaponry by civilians. What would of happened if this guy had a daisy cutter? How can I be for civilians with enough destructive power take down our government when I can't trust civilians to be responsible with that power? We keep explosives from civilains to keep bombs from happening as often as they would with out regulation. Where should we draw the lines with rifles? Again I'm progun so please debate with out personal attacks.

Except only 3 people were killed because making a homemade bomb capable of mass casualties is not exactly easy. You're kind of proving the opposite point. There was a massive crowd at the marathon and if it was easier to get larger explosives it would no doubt be much worse.

I'm not saying it wasn't significant, but only 3 deaths when 2 bombs go off in a large crowd sounds like it could have been a lot worse.

I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Look up what it took to make that bomb. It's happened once. This my point exactly, these kind of bombs don't get made all the time because you're average dumbass isn't capable of it.

Fertilizer that you can buy in bulk at an agriculture supply and diesel, not really complex.

I think people would be surprised what sheer numbers and guerrilla warfare could do against advanced technology. Especially if gov went so far that even many of the military members turned on it

I can imagine it very clearly Escobar's bombing campaign was very effective and no country has ever held a territory with a dedicated insurgency. If the people turn the people in the military always have family out it.

It's like nobody remembers Vietnam or Afghanistan.

Fuck you.

I'm sorry if I triggered you. Not sure what you didn't like about what I wrote but I hope you stop attacking people who you don't agree with. It doesn't help anyone become more intelligent.

Enough with the condescension, we get it, you're superior. You got your answer 12 times now, quit acting oblivious

I'm sorry what are you talking about? All I asked was to debate with out personal attacks. When someone just comments "Fuck you" Doesn't really add anything. I'm not being condescending I was being polite. I know a lot of people here don't like people with different ideas so I asked to keep it civil and most people have.

If guns aren't standing in the way, why take them?

I think you would regulate them for public safety. Thats why explosives and WMDs are regulated. Like I said I've gotten to a place where I'm on the fence. I don't believe the United States militray could be defeated with the weapons that are legal and I don't want to make it easier for terrorist to get the things they need to commit acts of terror. So the conversation needs to be where the line is draw.

How much are they paying you to be here?

For real? If anyone has a different idea they must be a shill? How do you have conversations if everyone believes the same thing. Isn't that the definition of a cicrlejerk? I'm just expressing what I think just like everyone else. If you don't agree say why.

In life, there is the truth, and there is the not truth.

So my challenged friend.. If someone wants to hurt a bunch of people, do they need a gun? Ok, great. Now, if someone wants to cause harm to someone else, is it easier to do if they are unarmed?

Totally, welcome back to sanity. (we aren't all susceptible to the bullshit.)

Again please don't attack people. Youre free to attack my points but if you can't conversate with out personal attacks then I don't think its worth the time to converse with you. Lots of other people who just want to talk and not attack each other. So please stop.

If someone wants to hurt a bunch of people, do they need a gun?

No, but it does make it a lot worse. He couldn't of caused the damage he did with out a gun or other weapon.

Now, if someone wants to cause harm to someone else, is it easier to do if they are unarmed?

No, it's easier to do with a weapon.

I'm not sure what your point was suppose to be. If it was anything could be a weapon so why pick on guns. I think this is a false equivalent. The reason would be to prevent higher degrees of damage. Regulate high powered rifles and clips so when they are used for evil they do less damage to the public.

Again, you're too obvious. You argue illogically to a logical person as if you are smooth enough to pull it off.

I am sure that sounded pretty smart in your head bud but as a guy just reading this I'm gonna go with, eh?

/r/iamverysmart

Oh look, you brought your friends.

Yeah I think you lost everyone. It's like the old lady watching her grandson in a play and she leans over to you and says see my boy he is doing great everyone else is messing up not him!

"Good god this man has different ideas then the hivemind, must be a shill!

If you refer to someone as a shill, you mean that they are paid to sell something or to participate in an activity in order to persuade others to buy or participate.

You wouldn't be trying to debunk reddit's shilling issue while shilling in the conspiracy sub, would you?

Calling everyone a shill is just a lazy way of giving up on your argument.

Shill

Removed. Rule 10.

It's not about defeating the us govt with your semi auto AR with a fin on the pistol grip and magazine that can't be removed.

If it's not about defending yourself from tyranny then what argument can be made for having explosives and high powered weapons? Home protection falls apart when talking about explosives and we could debate high powered rifles.

Since you are "progun" but are arguing the other side, I'll go the other way. I am vehemently against guns and gun ownership in general. BUT, you are way wrong on the "tyranny" thing. A tyrant can just be a robber. Your home is your sacred space, law wise. If someone or even the government has ill intent you can protect yourself. And say you have a lot of land, a pistol may not suffice. I don't think Randy Weaver was planning to "take down" the government at Ruby Ridge, but many feel that his course of action wasn't unjustified. If you have federal agents taking out people with high-powered rifles, then it would be nice to have some countermeasure, as a citizen.

I would just have far more draconian gun laws for misuse. I also think that if YOU think that the U.S. government is unassailable because they would use chemical or nuclear weapons against their own people, then they ARE tyrants that we should want to be able to protect ourselves against.

You can have a million rifles and It doesn't really make a difference to a aircraft carrier and a drone. I think the ship has sailed on a private citizen owning things with the stopping power to take out a tank regiment. Currently the threat is much greater of lone wolfs and terrorist causing destruction then a armed uprising. I'm arguing for responsible and modern guns laws that work for this generation. That includes public safety as a concern.

Lone wolves shouldn't be the reason to make harsher gun penalties...if anything, that shows that most people ARE responsible, and that randos are gonna off people one way or another...like ram with a car. Or just steal stuff like McVeigh.

I'll probably never own a gun, nor will I run over someone with my car...hopefully. But saying something like "gun laws that work for this generation" is pretty bogus. It can be easily countered by saying, "This generation should be aware that our government does some despicable things and you should protect yourself in case it ever becomes unstable." I think "this generation" sees the hypocrisy in things like the "drug war".

Since lone wolfs are increasing in frequency it is a long term problem and should be addressed. The bump stock that was recently used is a perfect example. When a person use something in a very destructive way normally we then make a rule/law regulating that thing. It's sad 1 person fucks it up for everyone but thats the way it goes. I won't argue our government isn't perfect but it's ours. It's like a car that we only get 1 of our whole lives. We can either work to make it better or kick a bunch of dents in it and break all the windows. If we work together on uniting the country then we don't have to worry about it becoming unstable. I'm for ending the drug war. Sounds good.

The original intention of the law was so the citizans could protect themselves from tyranny but now chemical and nucular weapons are a thing is this even possible anymore.

What an absurd argument. Yes it is possible. Learn to spell and not be such an obvious troll.

Please explain how it is possible and please don't attack people for just for having a different opinion. If you don't agree with what I have to say tell me what you think and why. I'm not trolling I'm just having a conversation.

Do you honestly think the military is going to turn on law-abiding gun-holding citizens? At least 50-75% would not fight citizens to take their guns. I think you vastly underestimate how red the military is.

I think the population would give up their guns of their own free will if the law changed and only a small section of people wouldn't. The people who did't would then be branded as criminals and law enforcement would do the rest. Military wouldn't need to be called. Wouldn't even come to war. You would just slowly arrest and prosecute people you found in violation of the law. Again if people don't like the law there is ways for them to change it and most people would rather try to change the law then to become a murderer, much less a cop killer. Cause that's exactly what you would be known as a cop killer. It would be ATF or FBI knocking on your door. I would turn in my guns. If I really didn't like it I would run for office and try to get a vote in the senate.

Name one southern state that would actually enforce a gun call back. This is how you launch civil war 2.0, except the vast majority of the military would not side with the government. All in the name of trusting our wonderful, trustworthy, never done anything bad at all government. No thank you.

Every southern state would enforce it. A individual might resist but the country as a whole is law abiding. People don't want to loss their homes, freedom, cushy government jobs to protect their guns. It's just not worth it to 90% of people to break the law. Look at whats happened so far. Inch by inch it's happening. No war and just like I said the people not complying are arrested. If they use violence they are arrest or killed. I aslo think you are wrong that the vast majority of the military wouldn't side with the government. Te government pays them. They give them their place to sleep. Their pride is in they're service to the country. You would be hard pressed to tell me the military would want to rebel over fire arms. Killing innocent people maybe but we would be talking about criminals. People who attacked police officers. No one is going to have any respect for them. They will all think you where given a peaceful choice and you choose to not follow the law. So I think they side with the people that pay them to follow the law.

Lol no. Sheriffs would not enforce it. Governers would not enforce it. The military would be sent in, who would not enforce it. You vastly underestimate how red law enforcement and the military is, and I don't think I can make you see that.

I know tons of sheriffs that would enforce it. Some might not but again your talking about a fringe group. I know lots of them who are against marijuana laws but they are still enforcing them because they don't want to loose their jobs which would cause them to lose their homes and healthcare. Your saying all these people would choose to become criminals. I just don't see that I don't see half our country as lawless lowlifes. Maybe in rural areas you wouldn't see enforcement at first but you would in major cities. Then as soon as DOJ see's all the money the bring in arresting people it's on. If you make guns illegal ATF isn't going to care what part of the country you live in. They will come pick you up. A lot of people can say they wouldnt ever give up there guns because it's not happening but when actaully confronted with the very real pain of having to fight for them most aren't going to cross that line. For most of them the only reason to have a gun is to protect there lives not many of them are going to want to go to war with the police and give up their live for a object they could just as easily do with out.

I highly doubt it would go down that easily, mostly due to governers refusing to enforce and sheriffs answering to them. Anyways, we will have a constitutionalist supreme Court for the next generation so I don't think I'll have to worry about it.

You know when the dems take back control they are just going to increase the number of supreme court justices and re-balance it. Mcconnil should them that they can do it with out even loosing my politically when he didn't let Merrick get a vote. Get what you can now but I wouldn't beat on that lasting. With the rebuilcan civil war to split the red vote and the dems united against their common enemy trump 2018 and 2020 don't look good. Been 9 months of getting nothing down with all 3 levers of government doesn't look either. Tax reform is already looking like it's doomed since it's just a tax cut for the rich.

Don't call yourself pro gun if you're not pro gun. That's like saying you're pro choice except that the doctor has the right to abort your child without your consent if it might be retarded.

When the 2nd amendment was written, cannons and explosives were considered "Ordinance" and not covered by the right to bear arms. The claim that the 2nd amendment covered nuclear weapons was a scare tactic made up in the 90s when politicians were pushing for gun control. You are underestimating the power of 100 million civilians with 300 million guns.

The fact that this is even a debate is worrisome.

ikr, there is nothing to debate. Eroding our rights is never ok.

you do notice that in both of your examples the terrorist didnt use a gun?

That’s the point. Banning cars would be retarded. Etc.

Banning cars and bombs would be retarded

i mean i would ban bombs anyway, dont think those work very well for selve defence

You would need Bombs to defend against tyranny. I don't think you could take out the government without them.

I'm sorry I'm not sure thats true. We have regulated explosive in the united states and that has keep explosive from people that would of used them for violence. The ATF monitors this. Well it stop everything? No but I don't think anyone thinks it will stop everything. I think it's about trying to curb the damage attacks can do and have some steps that allow for prevention. Like tracing explosives and investigating who's buying them and why.

Actually murder being illegal stops a lot. You can try legalizing murder and see what that does to the murder rate.

Or alternatively look up statistics about gun violence and gun availability.

Right, and existing gun laws stop a lot of gun crime.

No laws will stop all murder. No gun laws will stop all gun crime.

I'm for murder laws because they reduce murder significantly (presumably). I'm fine with gun laws because they reduce gun violence significantly.

Yeah it worked in Australia with Martin Byrant.

Just to play devils advocate. Letting civilians have guns didn't prevent this either. So whats the argument not to take them away or at least make it harder to get. I mean ISIS now has another tool they can just add to there bag. For under 2000 dollars they can cause another event like this in a month. If not new gun laws to try to make this harder what would you suggest?

This one wasn't stopped by civilians but a lot of violence is. I think more is stopped by civilians than would be avoided with gc laws

Thats you have a point about a lot of crime being stopped by civilians with guns. I think we would have to talk about specific GC laws. I think small scale crime is prevented by armed civilians. Home invasions/assaults/robberies. I think large scale crime like mass shootings aren't helped though. The singer said they had access to lots of legal guns in there tour bus but none of them helped because they couldn't even pick them up for fear of being thought by the police as a suspect. That struck me. They couldn't even pick up a gun. What do you think?

How does not being able to use a gun in one specific scenario justify gun control?

The scenario it's self would be the justification for a increase in gun control. The inability to use a gun in that scenario show's that guns don't protect people from that scenario which is the only argument you can make for having them there. Protection. In the scenario we are talking about guns in civilian hands become not a protection but a danger to police and civilians.

Lets take 2 examples. Guns legal. Police arrive on scene and start to see several armed people some might be suspect some might be civilian. Each one has to be dealt with before they can move on. They have to call for the weapon to be dropped and secured in each event. People with there Adrenalin up can have trouble following even simple directions.

Example 2 Guns controlled. Police arrive. The only people who have guns are the people who brought them or civilians that have managed to take them from the enemy. The police can move faster from less false positives and they also don't have to worry about untrained civilian cross fire.

If guns aren't able to be used for protection in this environment and they could be a danger why would we want them in this environment? I will full agree and acknowledge that not all events are the same and there will be exceptions to this rule.

Why not start examining reports of defensive gun use? See /r/dgu

Those are mostly examples of small scale crime which I think I said that is different then a mass shooting or terrorist attack. I argued that in small events a armed civilian is a great deterrence. My examples where suppose to be focused on mass murder/terrorist attack. I'm pro gun on small scale. I think people should have guns for personal protection.

Wherever you want to put those goalposts, I guess.

I though it was clearly defined. I specially mentioned small scale incidents and this only applied to mass murders or terror attacks.

The venue had alcohol. Concealed carry is not allowed where alcohol is sold (bars, taverns, etc.) Ergo, no one was carrying and thus no CCW was available to help.

You are saying that this points to not allowing CCW, because it couldn't help in this situation. This is a false equivalency.

Let's do another false equivalency so that you can see what I mean.

Kitchens have grease. Grease catches on fire. You need a specific tool - a Type B fire extinguisher - to fight it. If you fight it with a Type A or Type C fire extinguisher, the fire won't go out, and it might even get worse. The tool is just used to help out until the professional firefighters can get there. It can be, but not always is, useful.

You are saying because someone fought a grease fire with a Type A fire extinguisher, or maybe they couldn't fight it at all because they couldn't get to their fire extinguisher, you should ban all fire extinguishers and just leave firefighting to professional firefighters.

The best thing to do is train and equip as many people as possible to properly use a fire extinguisher, and have them on hand for when they are needed. To say otherwise is to twist logic to meet the demands of a certain narrative.

The venue had alcohol. Concealed carry is not allowed where alcohol is sold (bars, taverns, etc.) Ergo, no one was carrying and thus no CCW was available to help.

Can I point out that he was around the maximum range of his rifle with a elevated position. Even if someone would of had a CC the possibility of returning fire was 0%. If people tried retruning fire in this situation it would of been more dangerous then helpful. They could of hit people in rooms around his if their bullets even made it to him they could of dropped short and hit pedestrians.

To support what I said Caleb Keeter, Jason Aldeans guitarist had this to say "“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.

Enough is enough.

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac."

You are saying because someone fought a grease fire with a Type A fire extinguisher, or maybe they couldn't fight it at all because they couldn't get to their fire extinguisher, you should ban all fire extinguishers and just leave firefighting to professional firefighters.

No thats not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is having 500 people with guns in a crowd of 20000 with a active shooter doesn't help and makes the situation more dangerous. In small scale events yes guns help. But in large scale events they hurt.

The best thing to do is train and equip as many people as possible to properly use a fire extinguisher,

Fire extinguishers are not guns you wont accidental put out the wrong fire. You won't slow a fire fighters response to a fire by holding a fire extinguisher. You might shoot the wrong person in a crowded place, you might get shoot by a police officer who didn't know you weren't a target. I understand and agree that CC's are great for preventing small scale crimes but I think they are dangerous for just about anything Swat is going to show up to.

If they help then obviously they shouldn't be banned.

I'm for people being allowed to own some guns. I'm just not sure if I'm ok with them having 10+ with modification that make them fire like a automatic. I haven't seen anyone defend there home from a bugler with a crank modified weapon.

What's wrong with owning 10+ guns? Also, you can't stop someone from modifying their own weapon. You can make it illegal, but it won't stop them.

You make it illegal so you can use the power of the law to reduce it. Won't catch it all but you can make it unprofitable. The only thing I have against a person owning more then 10 guns is it gives them the ability to cause great public harm while not offering anymore protection from "criminals". While I wish we lived in a better place where people where personally responsible and we didn't need these kinds of restrictions people keep fucking it up for everyone else. 80% of people are doing nothing wrong but the people who are fucking it up are fucking it bad. Thats the only thing I don't like about people having multiple guns. I'm not die hard all about it. It just a opinion I'm not saying anyone else has to think that way. The argument "But it wont stpo them" is made a lot. While I agree a crazy man is going to do what a crazy man will do. I do think we can make it harder on them. Tim Mcveigh needed help from 3 people to build his bomb. That made it harder on him because then he had to recruit. It took longer and increased the chances of him getting caught. Not being able to get everything in one place increase the area he had to travel for supplies and increased the cost of his device. If we removed the regulations we had in place even then he could of built his bomb faster and larger. This shows that regulation does play a part in threat reduction.

People collect firearms and sell firearms.

10 is really not that many.

Inching closer to a communist country with that attitude.

Ccommunist, capitalist neither refer to gun law ideology. Either one could have guns. Either one could out law them.

Perhaps u should have said totalitarian.

Unless the leader of the totalitarian society loves guns.

F A L S E

F L A G

No guns = no gun violence. I’ve lived in New Zealand, Ireland, Australia. There are no guns anywhere, people do not get killed with guns.

I hate it when people make these comparisons. Come talk to us when you have the type of racial and ethnic diversity the US has not to mention 320 million fucking people.

You can hate facts all you want. So if America had a lower population all the same race, there would be no gun crime?

Also exposure to violent media and CIA operations against minority communities.

Exposure to violent media is not confined to the USA. CIA operations against minorities I’ll admit I know very little about. I’ve read about contracting people with diseases and some other horrendous atrocities, but I don’t see what this has to do with owning a machine gun?

I'm talking abut gangs drugs and rap music.

Name me a developed country that doesn’t struggle with these issues? Also, rap music? Really?

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/violent.aspx

Ok, good source. So rap music ‘may’ enhance violent tendencies. Rap music is prevalent all over the world.

Lead poisoning is a major factor in poverty stricken areas. Statistically proven to impare impulse control.

Think, what happened to the crime rates after roe v wade?

Sorry I can’t comment, don’t know much about what you’re referring to.

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

the crime rates went down in the states that legalized abortion vs the ones that didnt.

Rap music is a bit of a cyclical thing, considering it’s going to be based off the culture and upbringing of the artist. If their life was violent their music probably will be too.

Just wait until your government decides your the enemy. Notice they didn’t give their guns up did they

I’ll wait until you can spell first. When your large ex felon friend turns up he won’t have a gun, which is wonderful news. There are plenty of items I can beat the shit out of a criminal with that I’d have in my home that isn’t a gun and probably won’t be used in a mass murder.

also it's a proven fact pussies are mostly to scared to kill you when they have to do it with their own hands.

You’re not representing your argument very well.

Agreed.

Except I think he's representing your argument.

What?

I read their argument as neither you nor the person breaking in will have a gun which makes it less likely that someone will be killed in that scenario.

Oh I see. Yeah I think I get you now. ‘People are too scared to kill if they’re unarmed’ ?

In areas with heavy numbers of CCW, violence goes down. This is a proven fact.

You’re looking at a fact like that with rose tinted glasses. If 10 areas have 10 gun related deaths and a 10 concealed weapons areas have 5 gun related deaths that’s great. But all 20 areas would have no gun related deaths if nobody owned a gun.

In this scenario, do the cops have guns?

Like where I live, the general police do not, but there are special units that carry guns when necessary.

The more important point was the one made about the government. The biggest reason for the U.S.'s second amendment is to keep the people in power, which is why it's right next to the freedom of speech.

Disagree. Freedom of speech is wonderful. I do not believe you need a gun to feel superior to your government.

No, really. This isn't something you get to disagree with. Join any academic discussion on the purpose of the 2nd amendment and you'll that one of the main reason for it is to keep the government from being all powerful.

I’ll disagree with whatever I please. Your second amendment was in use of a different caliber of firearm that took about a minute to load one shot. I don’t think your forefathers were aiming to load you up with handguns, shotguns and machine guns. Also, if you and your friends had no guns then what happens? The government enslaves everyone?

Because in inner cities all the gun crime committed is legal guns obtained through legal means right? Banning all guns only means you take guns from those willing to abide by the laws anyway. The criminals will get guns regardless and then the law abiding responsible citizens are unarmed to defend themselves from those willing to live outside the law.

You don’t need to start with a sarcastic question, I’m happy to discuss this reasonably. Banning all guns takes the number of guns down and will continue to lower. Your police force are employed to keep you safe. If you consider yourself a law abiding responsible citizen I wouldn’t expect you to have ‘killing someone with a gun’ as being on the forefront of your mind.

Banning guns would mean law abiding citizens would turn their guns in, people that live and operate outside the law wouldn't so those guns would remain. Someone that is looking to do something like this will find a way, regardless of the gun law. Had this shooter needed to go through illegal channels to get the guns he would have because of he was willing to open fire on a crowd of 22k people, getting a gun illegally wasn't something he would have cared about. He also committed a felony with a 10 year minimum sentence by converting the weapon he had to full automatic so he obviously didn't care about the existing gun law anyway. Banning guns would not have stopped this and would just leave the person in your felon breaks in scenario with no defense to their home and family.

My point is that if guns have to be obtained illegally then their numbers would drop. There would be less than 5000+ children shot every year from guns lying around their houses. There would be less than 1 mass shooting every single day. Of course it won’t stop everything, but it will definitely reduce the chances of these things happening.

Also when the large ex felon breaks down your door to assault your family members, how you going to stop them?

A knife? A bat? A screwdriver? Gouging one of their eyes out with your finger? Rip one of their ears off if they're on top of you? There are ways to defend yourself with a gun.

Presume you mean ‘without’ a gun. Yep, completely agree.

Sure, but my tiny girlfriend isn't going to do shit against a male invader with a weapon, even if she has the same weapon. Guns are the great equalizer in situations where there's a strength difference

Yes those are all weapons and ways to cause harm, but in a situation like that you want something that is highly effective and works instantly, also all of those things need you to be within arm's reach of the assailant, but not with a gun. Also if that person has a gun and you don't, you're pretty much fucked.

Yeah there are ways, but all of those other ways of defense put me in more danger then if I just had a handgun to stop the person with. Why don’t I deserve the right to defend myself in a way that keeps me out of danger?

The government can outnumber and outarm any civilian as it is.

I'd rather give them a hard time then bend over for them. Look at Europe.

And you are going to take on an Abrams with a handgun?

Tanks without accompanying infantry are quite vulnerable. They also have to be maintained by a significant logistics chain, staffed by people that aren't in armored vehicles.

Pretty sure he didn't mean literally taking on tanks. The point is while civilians may be armed with simple weaponry such as semi-automatics, the military has extremely advanced weaponry, as well as training.

Very well put.

Are you suggesting we just roll the fuck over then? I don’t care if the government has a god damn tank. I want every advantage possible for if the day comes that I need to protect myself and loved ones.

They expect you to shut up and submit. Nothing less than that.

Past prosperity is no guarantee of future stability. Hopefully it stays that way, history indicates otherwise.

Sure, a purely civilian armed uprising won't stand a chance against most modern militaries in symmetrical warfare. It wouldn't be, as such things happen in a vacuum.

See the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and even the American Revolution itself. Veterans, defectors, and foreign influence are all force multipliers for the lowly partisan.

None of the above guarantee success, but all the heavy ordnance in the world can only help a regime enforce dictums. Enforcement itself will eventually come down to boots on the ground; some goon, somewhere, will have to kick down a door.

For a much more detailed take on the subject, see this thread.

Haha Our politicians are so laid back I recently helped one carry some fence paint to the counter at the hardware store (Gerry Brownlee at Bunnings of all places!).

If a large ex felon breaks down my door I’ll carry him out And wait for the police to arrive (who won’t have guns).

Yeah the biggest, strongest guy with the knife gets to just break into houses and steal/rape/kill anyone he wants as long as he gets to you before you can call the cops or gets out before they can get there...

Sorry I don’t understand your point?

My point is that small guys like me who don't lift weights would be at the mercy of any bigger guy that wanted to attack me or rob me. Guns are an equalizer for the weak or disabled

Ok, I understand your point. My view is that if there were no guns, there would be no mass murders. To compensate for your loss here I would promote increasing your home security, or utilising household objects to fend off intruders. Of course sometimes a large intruder would injure/kill a homeowner, that can’t be completely eradicated, but with no guns the lives saved would massively outweigh people in the situation you’ve mentioned. At least that’s my guess.

I feel opposite. I think many small attacks would outweigh the few large ones

Ok, fair enough. How would you feel about a maximum one gun per person, with intense background checks and (sorry my gun knowledge is horrendous) the gun having to be certain size? My point here is I don’t see why anyone should own a machine gun. If one person or one household was permitted to own one small handgun for protection in these events, would that be sufficient?

You do know automatic machine guns are not easily acquired right?

I do, but still acquirable.

Well now we can get into the oppressive gov debate and how authoritarian dictators always outlaw/seize guns. I don't want to debate this but the common argument that current gov tech making that pointless ignores the many Cold War battles of tech vs numbers and guerrilla warfare where that played out poorly for the high tech army

Do some self defence courses. I’m 6’7 and built like a brick shithouse but a small guy who knows what he’s doing can still throw me across the room.

Not every person can/wants to do that. I'm pretty busy and a handicapped person doesn't have the option. It's an ok solution on an individual basis but not a way to solve the large scale issue.

And instead of a knife, he'll have a gun....

Jesus fuck..are you that scared that you'll get killed in a scenario like that.

Go outside.

Take some air in.

Unplug yourself. Jesus fuck.

Fear mongering nothing more. This isn’t happening in places with strict gun control.

What are you talking about? Gun crime is still very much alive in Australia. Now we’re in a position where we can’t defend ourselves from these criminals. Armed break ins are rampant in suburbs of Melbourne because of refugee gangs, and people can do nothing to protect their families

Do you think giving everybody a gun would decrease the amount of gun violence? Of course ‘no guns’ isn’t 100% accurate, I mean guns are illegal and much fewer people own them than somewhere where guns are legal. There are 1.4 people murdered with a gun per 1 million people in Australia, according to a study around 2012. This figure is almost 30 for America.

I live in Texas and once a month there's a local story about a robbery being stopped by a concealed carry citizen.

That’s a nice anecdote, but what are the would-be robbers using?

Also, even if you look at that as an upside, I doubt it outweighs the downsides of having guns being relatively easy to obtain.

See /r/dgu for recent reports of defensive gun use in local media.

Well, I guess that settles it then. Stopping a robbery once a month is clearly more important than keeping people from being shot every day.

"You don't need to protect yourself, we the democrats will do the protecting for you..." no thanks.

The police protected everyone in the vegas event. Not armed civilians. The civilans that did have guns even said that they didn't help and that they could of even been added danger since if they picked them up the police might not of known who the bad actors where. I think we should let law enforcement do there jobs. If you want a small gun to protect your house and property no ones against that but modified high power rifles and silencers? I don't agree with that. I can't think of a good reason to have silencers legal.

Try living near a gravel pit, or a shooting range.

A silencer doesn't make a gun silent.

Also the 2nd amendment is to prevent government tyranny. It's not for self-defense, that's just a perk.

blacks make up 90% of that statistic. very little blacks in Aus

I respect other people’s opinions and am happy to discuss. There is no need for racism, though.

facts are racist?

If it’s fact, fair enough. Can you site it? How many blacks and Mexicans are there in Australia?

And barely a flash in the pan compared to the number of people in the country who own guns and celebrate their right to own them. We've forgotten the purpose of our rights.

You’re making irrelevant facts. I pointed out this statistic to show you that a country with no guns has very few gun related deaths. Your right to own a gun is from 1791, things may have changed a little since then. Is it to protect our country? From what? Isn’t that what your military is for?

So we just bend over and make it easier for a potential totalitarian government? Imagine if the Jews had guns in their homes, wouldnt have been so easy.

Not gonna happen really is it?

Gun crime in Australia is close to non-existent.

Armed break ins are rampant in suburbs of Melbourne because of refugee gangs, and people can do nothing to protect their families

Evidence?

Cite your sources REEEEEE!

No guns in Ireland . There's at least one person shot every week in Ireland . also Dublin is one of the highest hitmen per population in the world

From my 23 years living in Dublin I never once came across a gun and was lucky enough not to have had any friends or family members involved in a shooting. There are 4.8 people killed with a gun in Ireland per 1 million, as compared to 29.7 people per million in America. I used a similar stat for Australia elsewhere, sorry if I sound like a nerd. Dublin is absolutely not one of the highest in the world.

There isn't even a murder per week from in the entire country, and no mass shootings outside of the troubles. Worst gun crime I've personally experienced is drug dealers shooting up a rival shop.

That's 54 per year, that's very low

I don't quite agree with your statement. There is gun violence in Australia, there was a jewellery heist with sawn off shotguns next to the bakery I worked at for example. The police set up a sting to catch them thankfully. Pretty amazing sight seeing swat members run out from nowhere on what seemed like a regular day.

I agree we're safer from massacres or gun related violence because we have no arms now.

However for the first time in my life I can see the argument for pro-gun laws. If, conspiratorially speaking, we did have martial law imposed against our will or we were invaded by a nation; we could basically do nothing about it as Joe or Jane citizen unless you were one of the few with illegal arms or a hunters licence.

There is something to be said for protecting humans against themselves though. A psychotic without a gun is better than a psychotic with a gun. But even with our laws a psychotic could find a gun (and have) if they wanted to badly enough so is the answer stripping people completely from guns? Maybe it would be better to have employed more thorough gun laws with tight screening and regulations around home security for arms.

It's an interesting debate to consider and I think often the solution doesn't lie distinctly in left or right opinion but somewhere in between.

In the US we have also have nation guard armories where large stock piles of guns are. If your worried about a emergency like a foreign invasion those would give guns to civilians to protect themselves. Another alternative is a national militia but those can get dangerous cause when ever you have a small arm not under your direct control in a country you're gonna have a bad day.

Thanks for your response. It’s nice hearing other people’s perspectives. It’s bedtime here but I might come back with my views in the morning.

Yea bullshit. I am from Mexico. The only ones with guns are the criminals and our criminal government. We can't have guns and get heads chopped the hell off. Fuck anti weapon legislation. Maybe stop feeding people crazy pills first.

It always makes me laugh when people think that more legislation will stop criminals, by definition criminals don't follow the laws.

No offense but I think Mexico is a bit of an exception here

Is most of South America and Africa and anywhere with armed violence exceptions as well? or do we just not count because it's not America or Europe.

Are you going to tell me that if you had the right to bear arms in Mexico there'd be less fun crimes? Some places are just more dangerous than others

Less fun crimes? What are you going on about. The USA and Europe are pretty dangerous with terrorist strikes randomly.

And yes, if people had weapons they'd be able to protect their homes at least. We have home break in problems in this country. Everyone's home has had something stolen from before. Get armed get fucked.

I meant gun crimes. And I'm from Ireland, where the op was talking about for example and no, we don't have random terrorist strikes but regardless, gun ownership has nothing to do with that. There's more gun crime in Mexico because it's a hotbed of crime so it'll happen regardless of whether or not citizens are armed. Sure, you'd feel safer but there'll just be more homicides.

Gun homicides per 100,000 U.S.A: 10.5 Mexico: 7.6 Ireland: 0.8 U.K: 0.2 Italy: 1.3

You still think Mexico is an average country? In a very literal sense it's an exception.

While I do agree with you America is already infested with guns there is no way in hell People will give up theirs guns without causing a Civil war, stricter gun laws might help but they won’t solve the problem completely unfortunately.

Yep, I agree. It’s impossible to take the millions and millions of guns off those who carry. But I think making guns illegal is the correct thing to do. Stricter gun laws absolutely. I would probably be content with one handgun per household or something if it was all I can get.

[removed]

Im surprised he hasnt commented on this yet, as he's done so on every other comment in this thread shilling with anti-gun rhetoric.

Yeah I had to sleep mate, sorry to keep you waiting.

1. I don’t expect you to, you’re very much set in your ways. I’m pointing out that people don’t get shot and killed in countries with no guns.

2. Nope, no idea. I don’t know what the solution is. Again, I’m just pointing out that you won’t get killed with a gun if there are no guns.

3. I agree and disagree. There’s no way of knowing whether this would have happened or not. I’m sure it’s a possibility, but my point is that if guns were illegal then these events would be less likely to happen.

4. I’d presume it’s the legal gun owners leaving their guns around the house that contributes to the 1,300 children who die each year from firearm-related injuries, and the 5,790 that survive gunshot wounds. Maybe your friends in Chicago will still be around shooting each other but I’ve just saved 1300 children from needless death.

[removed]

1. What am I lying about? You said America doesn't care about, or depend on, the countries I've mentioned. That's not something I've ever inferred? Again, I'm pointing out that countries that have no guns have no gun violence. Laws change sometimes, particularly outdated ones. A law about guns from 1791 might be past its sell by date.

2. I have not forgotten about the Bataclan, no. Do you think if everyone in that concert had a gun the amount of deaths overall would have decreased? I do not. I'm aware that guns will always exist. Again, my point is that if there are fewer guns, there will be fewer gun related deaths. You can throw anything at me, these will remain facts.

3. I don't feel embarrassed, I wouldn't use personal attacks to maintain my argument either. Yes, the Bataclan happened, unfortunately. But in France there are fewer guns than in America, so we speak about the Bataclan, but that's it. Not the 364 other mass shootings that would probably happen like in America where guns are more prevalent. Again, my point is these things are less likely to happen where there are no guns. Are you going to mention the shooting in Munich in July 2016 next? Yes, that happened. But it happens less frequently around the world in comparison to the disgusting statistics your country hold countless records of, due to the fact that anybody can buy a gun.

4. I said 'I'd presume' as it's an impossible statistic to know, but all you have to do is look up toddler deaths in America to find any source. Here's just one - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html Guns make suicide easier, yes. If you look at facts, which I'm continuously sending your way, you'll see that about 1300 children die from gunshot wounds a year in America.

You don't represent yourself, or your argument very well when you say things like 'you got obliterated, cry harder'. Unless you're a teenager, I'd suggest keep personal insults aside to get your point across. The only thing I cry about is the innocent people that die needlessly in America for these reasons. I'm very happy to listen to your argument, and happy to learn more about the situation as we speak. I've also learned about the benefits of listening to your opposition, which is why I'm trying to respond logically and politely to everybody on this.

Your insolence doesn't deserve anything but mockery and insult.

Hint: all three of those countries have something in common that doesn't apply to America. They're ISLANDS

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. If New Zealand bordered Mexico and had South America below, would it average one mass shooting a day?

You realize that there are a lot more differences than just that, right? We have gang culture. We have 300 million citizens. We have a huge border with a borderline third world country. There are 350 million guns in circulation. You thinking that New Zealand, Ireland, and Australia are good examples of how America could work is hilarious.

I do realise there are more differences than these countries being islands, but that’s the point that you made so that’s the point I’m responding to. Your population is irrelevant.

So, population density doesn't matter, culture doesn't matter, ease of smuggling doesn't matter, but what DOES matter is your feelings. Ok.

Once again you’re completely missing the point.

The point that you're looking at countries with very little in common with America and saying "well obviously if we change this one thing like them it will be the exact same."

I could name another several first world countries if you like. My point is that if your country has less guns then your gun crime will go down.

And if your country has less hammers, hammer related deaths would go down. What's your point? Should we ban hammers since blunt objects are used to murder anywhere from 2 to 5 times more Americans every year than "assault weapons"?

Hammers have a use outside of murder. Trucks are necessarily large sizes to keep costs down on transport. You don’t need guns to build a house or to transport materials around.

Nah, we can use rocks to bash in nails and a bunch of smaller cars to pull trailers. No one needs those things, so we should ban them since they kill so many. No one needs a burger from McDonald's, yet they kill thousands per year via heart disease. Ban burgers!

Nobody ‘needs’ to exist, do they? Keep listing things and I’ll keep telling you that guns have no use for civilians other than to kill people.

No use other than killing people. Damn, I guess I've been using my guns wrong all these years. Thousands of bullets shot and not a single person killed, how is this possible!? Home defense, hunting, target shooting, defense against government tyranny. Hammers are only useful for hitting in nails and murder, so we should ban them.

Defence against government tyranny? How did that go for you? Home defence, lock your doors and windows, get an alarm. My point is, again, if you have a shit attack it’s very easy for you to end your own life or kill multiple people very quickly with your weapons. Before you use hammers and trucks as your example, you can’t kill 60 people from a window with a hammer, and it’s easier to dodge a truck than to dodge a bullet. And again, hammers and trucks have practical, necessary uses. Read the word ‘necessary’ again.

Dude, a guy literally killed 80+ people in Nice with a Truck. Sounds a lot easier than setting up a vantage point, getting tons of guns and ammo, and everything else involved. You're not interested in saving lives, obviously. You just don't like guns.

Seems funny that you're insinuating we have tyrannical government while simultaneously advocating we give them all of our weapons and trust our safety with them. The cognitive dissonance is real.

Alarms and locks are easily bypassed, and where I live it would take the cops at least 30 minutes to get to me. That's a long time to be at the mercy of someone because they're bigger than me. Guns are the greatest equalizer in the world, but I guess you want to trust our loving police and government totally with our safety. No thank you.

And how many of these truck attacks happen? Definitely not averaging ONE PER DAY like mass shootings in America. You can’t stop violence everywhere, but quelling guns would reduce their crime rate. I haven’t insinuated anything about your government and tyranny, that’s what you said. I don’t think your government will enslave your country anytime soon if you don’t have guns.

My interest is in safety. Less guns = less gun deaths.

Less hammers = less hammers deaths. Gun deaths are a tiny subset of deaths. 93%-95% of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. If you factor out gang on gang violence, you have a similar gun crime rate to any European country. I will not disarm and trust our loving government to protect me and mine, no matter what feeling-based statement you make. Banning guns will take away a basic right for very little gained. I'm for keeping as many personal liberties as possible, obviously you want to trust big brother to keep you safe. I'll pass.

I don’t consider owning a gun a basic right. I think it’s unnecessary. Guns were invented to shoot, injure, kill people. Hammers were invented for constructive purposes. Your comparison isn’t relevant.

Again, feel free to suckle the government's teat. I'll be protecting myself, thanks very much.

If that’s how you’d like to conclude this then ok. I sincerely hope none of your firearms contributes to any of the statistics I’ve mentioned.

I'm not a gang member, so they're about as likely to contribute a any European firearm.

It’s not the gang members’ children that shoot each other with guns left lying around houses, apparently.

I'm completely ok with gun control in that aspect. Force gun owners to safely store their firearms and charge them with assisted murder if their firearms are used to kill someone due to poor storage. You don't have to take away all guns to solve that problem.

I presume you own a gun or several guns. Do you mind me asking where you store them?

In a gun safe in my closet or secured on my person. I have a level 2 retention holster and my carry gun has two safeties (grip safety and trigger safety), so it's not going off unless I want it to. When I sleep, my carry pistol goes in a drawer next to my bedside table for easy access, still in the holster. It's never there unless I am. I don't have kids running around so I feel comfortable with that, if I had kids I'd likely either get a quick access fingerprint safe or a smart lock for the pistol. I have no sympathy for dumb gun owners and would happily see them thrown in jail for their idiotic mistakes.

Look at that, something we can agree on.

Less hammers = less hammers deaths. Gun deaths are a tiny subset of deaths. 93%-95% of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. If you factor out gang on gang violence, you have a similar gun crime rate to any European country. I will not disarm and trust our loving government to protect me and mine, no matter what feeling-based statement you make. Banning guns will take away a basic right for very little gained. I'm for keeping as many personal liberties as possible, obviously you want to trust big brother to keep you safe. I'll pass.

The other two objects have actual use to them besides violence. Well trucks bring people from point A to point B. hammers. . .well they hammer nails. What other purpose does a gun have other than to kill people.

Hunting, target shooting, defense against government tyranny, self defense, home defense, hell I can even hammer in nails with the butt of a pistol. See, we don't even need hammers!

hunting- killing

target shooting- practice for killing, but not killing

defense against government tyranny- presume you have to do this by killing someone

self defense/home defense- killing the other person

so. I'd still say guns are only for killing

Lol ok buddy. Just change what you were talking about, no problem. Enjoy suckling the government's teat.

Technically the US is an Island too...

The U.S is landlocked on two sides. By no technical definition is it an island.

By that logic we should make drugs illegal too. I mean, if it's illegal then nobody will have a way to aquire them.. right?

If guns are illegal, there will be a significantly smaller number of people that own guns. If you really want one, I’m sure you’ll get your hands on one. It would be risky to own several, particularly anything that would bring attention to you as you’d go to jail. It is impossible to eradicate something 100% but making it illegal will drop the number of deaths.

They don't have guns in Catalan either. It's no wonder the cops are caving peoples heads just for trying to vote.

If they had guns, how many casualties do you think they would have?

Zero. With a capital Z. Mariano would never have ordered the cops in if people there were able and willing to defend themselves. He would have had to play the same bullshit games politicians play in America, and the people would have an at least marginally level playing field. Trust me, those Catalan cops are twice as honorable as the trigger happy pig fuckers we have here. You give in on the second amendment now, you'll be taking a baton up your ass come November 2020.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

There are an estimated 300 million guns in circulation in America. Let that sink in. 300 million. This country is not the same situation as Australia.

What is your point with this statistic? It is substantially more difficult to acquire a gun in Australia so there are fewer guns. I know America is not in the same situation as Australia because you can carry weapons in America. So yes, guns are plentiful in America.

Guns aren't going anywhere in the US. I'm not even pro gun. I'm being realistic. There are too many.

Yeah I agree. I’m just pointing out that if there are no guns there is no gun crime. I’ve no idea where to begin in terms of removing the guns.

Well regardless if that's true or not, the United States has more guns than people. What are you suggesting, the government storm into everyone's houses and remove these guns at gunpoint?

Because that would be illegal as fuck and nobody (the right or the left) would allow that. The situation is a lot more complex than you think.

I have not said the situation is simple. I do not have the solution. I’m informing you of my opinion that guns should be illegal. No guns = no gun deaths.

Says "no guns = no gun violence" then proceeds to list 3 islands as if USA's ability to limit arms into the country is even slightly similar to that of an island

I have never suggested limiting guns to the USA is simple. I am telling you my opinion that if you had no guns you will have no gun violence. If I could make guns illegal in America right now I would. That would at least stop every trigger happy, easily influenced, uneducated violence enthusiast from being able to pick up a handgun with their next grocery run. Have to start somewhere.

Hey I definitely agree with you; if there were no guns then gun violence wouldn't exist. But we live in a real world, where real world problems still exist. If you could snap your fingers and cause all guns from the world to disappear that would be great, and would probably lead to a significant drop in human on human mortality rates. But the reality of the situation is outlawing guns in the US wouldn't actually get you the desired result. We have 2 boarders that are way too easy to traffic illegal goods through, I mean just think about the massive opiate problem the U.S. is having. Not to mention that firearms are now able to manufactured through 3d printers, outlawing guns just isn't a viable solution to solve the issue. The reality is that it's a complex issue that will require no small amount of nuance and public discourse to solve.

Yea, that's not really how it works. I'm guessing you've never heard of the black market or the dark web.

We've had a war on drugs here in America for the past 40 years and drug use has actually gone up! There is now way to completely remove something from a society, someone will always figure out how to get it and when they do, they make shitloads of money and it just spreads from there.

Yes I agree, it’s impossible to eradicate from society completely, absolutely. But if you get your guns from the black market you’ll be less likely to own as many as if they are legal. You’ll be less likely to purchase at all, I’d presume. Murder is illegal, people still get murdered, yes. If murder was legal, more people would get murdered.

But if you get your guns from the black market you’ll be less likely to own as many as if they are legal.

The legal market costs more and has more regulations, the black market is cheaper and you can buy whatever you want!

Yeah I get that, but you’re more likely to get caught with a shed full of firearms than with one under your pillow.

Do your police officers carry guns?

The general police population do not, no. There is a special branch that do. Very seldom seen, unless specifically required. That’s exactly how I think it should be.

It will never happen here that way. The sheer amount of guns would make it damn near impossible, but the police will not hand over their toys. They have tanks these days.

Tanks? Yikes. Yeah I doubt it ever will. You’d need absolute certainty that nobody owns a gun for the police to drop their weapons. You’ll have a Mexican as the secretary of defence before that happens.

Yes, unfortunately the problem is getting escalated rather than lessened. I believe we should have guns, though I will never own one. I think having it so folks who are crazy or mentally unstable shouldn't own any. The gun violence stems from much deeper problems than just access to them. Standard medical care for everyone, including mental health care. Addressing the income inequality gap, and improving the general quality of life. These are issues to the problem. We seem to be fixated on only the gun part of that discussion though. Turns into just more divisive politics rather than any kind of real solution.

Yeah completely agree. I’ve never suggested it’s plausible to make all the guns disappear. My view is a comparison that a country with no guns has no gun violence. As you’ve said, there are much more situations to assess.

I know, I didn't take it that way. You're absolutely accurate in that assessment IMO.

I’ve recently learned that the phrase ‘great minds think alike’ (which I was about to use) actually finishes with ‘...but fools seldom differ’. Pity!

New Zealand is pretty laid back too right? Lower violence in genera, I am assuming. You think the lack of guns plays a vital role in that?

Yeah I do, absolutely. I’d never consider owning a gun. For one, it makes suicide far too easy an option. Among the 1,300 children who die each year from firearm-related injuries in America 53% are homicides, 38% are suicides and 6% are unintentional. Another 5,790 survive gunshot wounds. Owning a gun is just madness in my opinion.

I have experienced a state of true rage in my lifetime. All rational thought was long gone during that breif moment. Thinking of a hypothetical scenario being in the same state of mind with a gun in my hand, scares the living shit out of me. This can also be the same for moments in my life where I was suffering from severe depression. The risk of that threat far outweighs the risk of not having one while needing to defend myself, which in 37 years has been zero.

Sorry to hear you’ve had to deal with depression. I understand your sentiment completely. If you have no gun to use then you won’t use it. You can protect yourself from theft with all sorts, a bat, your fists, etc. You won’t end your life with these items as easily as a gun will let you.

I would never put myself at risk over material wealth, so could never justify a gun for such occurrences. I would never inflict violence over it either. I know I may have a minority opinion on that topic, being a pacifist. Life is far more precious, even the life of the would be thief.

Bed time for me. Stay safe, mate. Thanks for the chat.

Likewise, I enjoyed the chat. Take care.

sure, keep your guns, but be prepared for continued orchestrated mass shootings by groups trying to get rid of them. while you're at it, try compiling a list of all the times that citizens' guns helped at all, in any way, during these instances. or just get rid of guns and it all stops.

Lol. "Do what we want or we will keep killing people." Clearly a rational debate will be starting any minute now.

Looks like everyone is falling for it, it being the DEY TEEKIN OUR GUNS scaremongering.

How many shootings are there in countries that have gun controls in place? Almost none in comparison to the USA, how many people have to die to get it into your heads that it is an issue!

I'm in Australia and we rarely hear of shootings, our gun control is a bit to strict but at least we don't have the loss of lives caused by people who have access to weapons that aren't needed by anyone.

"At least we will all be alive to enjoy tyranny!"

Like Americans could even begin to take on their government with their limited legal arsenal.

Of course we could. Some cave-dwelling inbreds did it with 80s Russian weaponry.

You gun isnt going to protect from a guy shooting from the 32nd floor either.

But, what good is any type of weapon barring a rocket launcher against the US military or militarized police? The only logical conclusion you could draw from them taking away weapons is that people think they are helpless without them against the tyrannical government, when in fact you are helpless with them. Maybe because they intend on cival war? I don't know but I am genuinely curious.

Literally no one is calling for taking guns. No one. This is a straw man argument by its very definition. Calling for action to keep the mentally ill from obtaining guns, or better background checks, closing loop holes, etc... has nothing to do with taking guns.

A lot of people misconstrue "gun control" for "ban" which gun Control is already a very vague topic as it is.

No one has ever been trying to take your guns, first off. You've gotta face that reality. Only thing they've tried to do is place limitations, or keep it out of the hands of would be shooters, which we'll all agree is difficult regardless.

They will never be taken away by legislation, and your fear mongering is more likely to aid in creating events that would lead to a police state.. and that's when you have something to worry about.

But considering conservatives are in charge of every branch of government.. it's simple fear mongering that is never gonna happen.

Sandy Hook was a staged event carried out by child murdering pedophilia cults that have infiltrated aspects of the government and media and were backed up by the human trafficking Italian Mafia and paramilitary death squads. Sandy Hook was used as type of litmus test to sort out those that reject the official story and speak out. Those who spoke out against Sandy Hook's official story have been put on a list for persecution and execution. The fake story was the bait and the internet is the hook used for catching those that speak out. Anyone that looks into Sandy Hook can see the inconsistencies, flaws, and suspicious details. Realizing that members of the government and media were involved in carrying out a staged mass shooting of 20 children is shocking. Many immediately turn to cognitive dissonance to deal with this realization. Those initiated in secret societies were in on it and there are millions in the United States that are initiated into secret societies.

The fact is that the US government has legalized information programs through the NDAA with the intent for international use through their Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting network makes the media legalized liars that cannot be trusted. The VOA reported on Sandy Hook. The media's immediate response to Sandy Hook was disarmament of citizens. It is logical that a tyrannical government would seek to disarm citizens and go as far as staging mass shootings to do obtain their objective. Since it was the death of 20 children this makes it a sensitive subject. The reality is that the US government has murdered millions of children through trade sanctions, war, and hellfire missiles and they do not even deny this. Those involved with the Sandy Hook story signed national security contracts, were paid mostly through charitable organizations, and are members of secret societies involved in pedophilia and human sacrifice.

Some inconsistencies include Robbie Parker smiling on video less than 24 hours after his daughter was brutally murdered as the media reported, the death certificate released through the Freedom of Information Act that states Adam Lanza died the day before Sandy Hook occurred and in New Hampshire, the strange behavior from the coroner, green screen used by CNN during an interview with one of the victims parents, doctored photos of Adam Lanza, and many other details. The inconsistencies were intentional and the bait. Motives involving Sandy Hook include disarmament for enslavement, pay offs or greed, murdering those that speak out, and most of all for enabling human trafficking and pedophilia. Many came out strongly in defense of the story as if they were there and many of them are paid or more than likely pedophiles part of this larger agenda.

The Lanza family are a Sicilian nobility and hold many titles through out Sicily to this day. Today Prince Pietro Lanza di Scalea is the head of the Sicilian Lanza family. The Sicilian Mafia are involved in human trafficking. The Hollywood movies that glorify gangsters as if they have some moral code is propaganda. The mafia are the most ruthless and despicable group on the planet. Ryan Lanza moved to New Jersey where the Italian Mafia have major influences over. It appears that Ryan Lanza helped to create the fake identity of Adam Lanza while residing in the town of Sandy Hook. Jeff Lanza is a retired FBI agent from Connecticut and this suggests the Lanza family have infiltrated the FBI. The private investigator Wolfgang Halbig while speaking with a woman on video mention the Italian Mafia threatening them. I have been threatened many times for speaking out against Sandy Hook myself.

What's it like, being severely mentally ill?

What's it like being a defender of child murderers and pedophiles? I imagine you are one.

Thanks for proving my point.

The media has not yet realized the shooter was using a bump fire stock on what sounded to me like AR-15. I'm sure bump fire mods will be in the news tomorrow.

I agree I've been seeing more and more speculation of bump stocks. Alex Jones is pushing the whole belt fed MG discussion which the more I see the videos he's talking about, and the way the rate of fire surges through the bursts a slide fire stock seems to be a topic to bring up.

It's a stupid argument; The "the government wants to take your guns away." The government doesn't want to take guns away. It's a good debate to have about "gun control." We'll be having the gun control debate, talk every now and then when a big shooting happens. Unfortunately these big mass shootings will continue to happen.

Secondly, the debate for government removing ALL guns from Americans would be to prevent these mass shootings from ever happening again. Take all the guns away and you'd probably still have these mass shootings. It's just a debate like all the other intellectual debates. "To Gun Control" or "Not Gun Control."

It gets people fired up on both sides, on four sides. I lose count. Three sides? A triangle

Mass shooters are fame seekers. Stop making rock stars out of them and the shootings will stop. Of course, the media, and more importantly, those who own the media know this, which is why it won't happen.

"Crowds on Demand" is all I've got to say. They were running ads in Law Vegas back in August. I didn't see any so called heroes, who supposedly dragged bodies or carried injured people to safety, with blood on them. I saw one picture of what looked like a girl with fake blood on her. Also saw a bunch of crisis actor heroes with grins on their faces.

yeah I haven't seen any believable carnage videos. And the SWAT team found him dead in the hotel room? FOUND? This reeks of hoax/False flag. Lets see if the victims are real or if they are fake shell identities.

Here's a nice vid of a guy saying they're not real gunshots: link!

Hopefully the link shows up.

Also theirs the picture of two guys in their cellphones while policeman are crouching around a police cruiser, as if their about to receive gunfire.

Thanks for links, good stuff. Yeah the full auto fire sounds like fire crackers. I have heard a lot of guns in my time and they have never sounded like that.

Yep, I've heard full auto fire on tv or in the news or some video clips. And I've definitely heard a lot of semi-auto or regular rifle fire. You'd think it would sound something similar to that. That gunfire definitely didn't sound real, even if it was far away. Still you'd think you'd see or hear some ricochet or hear bullets hitting something. Also, how does someone get a hold of 10 automatic weapons like that? You'd think that would draw some red flags.

Obviously making murder illegal doesn't work. It should be legalized ASAP.

United States cannot get rid of guns. Mexico ensures that..we would have to ban guns in all of the Americas including g law enforcement and military.

If they didn't take guns after Sandy Hook, they aren't going to take them not. Stop fear mongering.

I didn't see anyone talking about Jason Aldean's role in this. If someone did, I missed it. It seems that this happening at one of his concerts, where a lot of his fans could and probably have guns, or are pro-gun. It just seems weak an obvious way to try to change people's views. With a very common weapon- fear. I'd like to hear other's thoughts.

I mean, if we outlawed cars, it'd be harder to use them as weapons. I'm a little confused by your questions. Are you saying that because people can do illegal things with any objects, limiting access to one object over another is not a solution?

If so, that is a pretty naive argument. Vehicle ownership is arguably more regulated than gun ownership and cars weren't created with the purpose of killing things.

Has one person in a car killed 50 and injured 500 in one hour ??

Huh? What's your point? My main point is that saying we shouldn't limit one avenue for committing a crime because there are other avenues to commit the same crime is a naive and foolish argument.

I'm showing how dumb your comparison is. Cars are not guns they are tools and misused at times. Guns are meant to kill whatever you are shooting at it is only a weapon. If we don't regulate we are fucked such as one guy owning 20 or so rifles. Have a good day moron

What?!? Then we are saying the same thing dude. I said not regulating one thing(guns) because there are other ways to commit the same crime (killing with cars) is a naive argument. The main point compared guns to cars and I was saying that is a bad comparison.

This screams false flag. Didn't make any sense to me since i heard about it this morning. Only explanation that makes sense at the moment to me is gun control.

Think about it, the other mass shootings as of recent didn't trigger gun owners enough so they said hey, what better place to change peoples view on gun control than a fucking country music festival. A large majority of people who like country love guns, hunting, and murica. At least I'm assuming that's the logic behind whoever pressed the agenda. So they decided to hit it, and the aftermath of it, in their hopes, is to change the minds of concert goers and their family, extended families, and friends.

This is a tragedy, and it's terrible. And I'm not a republican or democrat, don't believe we need more gun control, or anything...I just use common sense. And there's no way I'm buying that this was a lone wolf who randomly snapped. Too many red flags with this one.

I bet it's a hoax like sandy hook. This never happened. The fake news are making this story up. I'll wait for Alex Jones before I believe anything.

Nah it did happen. I know people personally who were shot. I'm saying it didn't happen quite like they're portraying.

What a fun jump in logic. We should make bombs legal then? Regulations don't work, laws don't work. People break laws, so why have them, amirite?

Doing nothing is definitely the right desicion. People don't actually care about crisis, it's just the boogie man taking away your guns.

Isn't it odd there's a white man mass shooting right after all the heated debates over black athletes kneeling? This seems like convenient timing for the racial divide narrative.

Martin Bryant...

people don’t understand that criminals don’t follow the law and can still get weapons even if the government goes into every american and takes their guns... it’s about enforcement and more stricter laws, not taking away rights and weapons

Of course, criminals will be criminal. Does not change the fact that fewer guns means fewer gun related deaths.

Holy shit. 59 people dead and all you care about is your fucking guns. Get a grip.

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522036660/democrats-are-good-for-gun-sales-guess-what-happened-after-trumps-election

(this post has NOTHING to do with any presidential matters)

Gun sales ALWAYS increase when the topic of gun control comes up. Remember the fervor around the violent crime control and enforcement act? (included assault weapons ban, '94). There was a record amount of guns and large capacity magazines being purchased, since they we would be grandfathered in after the act was in place (which... really didn't do anything to hinder, if not actually accelerated the amount of those items deemed as"assault weapons" being present in the public, even in the years following while the "ban" was still in effect; although only being in effect for 10 years before being repealed. (Not discussing effectiveness of that ban in this post)).

When the ban was repealed in 2004, restrictions were lifted, gun control talk went down, as did sales. New president, promise to not restrict guns, sales have dipped again after the last democratic president. The biggest bumps in sales have been surrounding periods of gun control talk/restrictions/shootings.

Food for thought. Friendly trend-ly reminder.

tl;dr

Gun sales are down.

Gun stocks are up now

To say there isn't anything we can do is to declare mass shootings a normal part of society.

To say we shouldn't do anything is to endorse them.

They might not be calling to take our guns, but they ARE calling to decrease our mag size to basically nothing, not allow silencers (which don't even make a gun silent), prevent ant stocks or attachments from being available, and a bunch of other regulations to basically make our guns useless.

So I don't get it.. Is this sub overrun with dumb-fuck backwoods trump supporters or not? Because it seems to me there are is an alarmingly unusual amount of leftist rhetoric in this thread.

Gun-totin' weirdos

I don't know what happened, but if the cost of enforcing gun control laws was a couple of hundred dead people there are plenty of deep state and other interested groups that would take it without a second thought.

Meh, I might as well make this post 332 comments.

I've had enough numerology for one day.

Shills are everywhere

remember the 100,000 goat bangers that thought bloing innocents for the glory of their uncle? Now picture millons of armed americans who are hungry. gg

What do "goat bangers" have to do with starving soldiers? You are mentally ill.

The problem is not gun control. The infrastructure of the world is in true turmoil. Greed and corruption have set the general population down the wrong path. We are constantly surrounded by the media selecting the most subtle difference to pick at. We must all come together to fight this evil presented. Controlling guns will do nothing more than continue to break the trust between citizens and governments. Once again, we must all come together.

When the act of "lone gunman" in general can effect legislation it just breeds more distrust. If the endgame is to remove guns eventually these situations are all too valuable for the movement. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and yet has the highest gun violence. Most crimes are ones of opportunity and when a criminal knows there is a high chance you are unarmed it only adds to the opportunity.

criminals don't care about gun laws. don't leave yourself defenseless.

Europe would be perfect if there wasn't a single muslim on our land. Too bad our (((leaders))) have an agenda to push.

'Europe would be perfect' You've obviously never been to Slough in England, or Toxteth for that matter.

I've had enough of hearing this argument. You cunts have got more than enough reasons to use your precious 2nd amendment to march on Washington and demand better government, but you don't.

You have had every opportunity to exercise your rights, but you failed. Now they are going to be taken from you, like they took them from us.

Americans are armed to teeth and we're still getting robbed, murdered, and locked away by our own government. Are you so sure you want us to loosen the already tenuous grip we have on it? The fact that we have these guns, might be the only reason our crooked government hasn't "liberated" your government.

[Poll] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/73y81p/poll_who_thinks_the_las_vegas_shooting_could_be_a/

Anyone have any thoughts about this post from anon on September 10th? https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/141096258/#q141104921

The simple fact remains that Americans are much more likely to die of gun violence than any other people in the world. Perhaps better mental health care combined with gun control would help a lot to reduce the carnage.

No offense but people who blame this on guns are simply nuts. Here's why.

If you want to ban guns because people die to them, do you also support banning Cars, Ladders, Medicine,Cigarettes, alcohol, house hold cleaning products etc.?

If you answer no, then you are a hypocrite because each of those things EXCEED the number of deaths caused each year by guns. If your goal is to keep people from dying, guns are literally one of the last things you should think about banning.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

More than double the number of people killed last night have died in car accidents since the shooting took place. Where's the car ban virtue signalling?

Also not that gun deaths are just a subset of violence which means they account for even less of the violence specified in that link.

2)

"But gun control means less gun violence!"

Yep, and no humans means no violence at all. What's the point?

Do you care more about whether a woman is raped by a man with a gun or that she is raped at all? If you say the former, you are also a hypocrite.

Gun control has been proven to increase the total amount of violent crime, not with guns, but overall. A perfect example is Australia where violent crime skyrocketed after the gun ban. More women were raped after the gun ban than before, but I suppose for those who care more about raped by "man with gun" than "raped at all" that is an acceptable trade off.

Here: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Less gun crime != less crime. It always equals more crime.

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

It is a fact that more crime occurs where criminals know their victims are not likely to have weapons to defend themselves with. As you have seen just last night, the police do not ever deter crime, they can only clean up the mess left behind and promise justice.

Only armed citizens can prevent a crime from happening by stopping it when it happens rather than the police cleaning up after.

There is just one credible study I could find that supports the notion that gun control reduces crime and that is this.

source: http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Firearm-Ownership-and-Violent-Crime.pdf

Problem though. Notice the states which led to the weighted bias against gun ownership are also southern border states. A border rife with violent cartel drug related crimes and a disproportionate number of crimes related to undocumented citizens. Borders are always more violent because that is where goods (money) change hands.

I don't present this to be mean, only to help people question their position. It is insanity to suggest that banning guns is at all about saving lives. It objectively, by every metric we have observed, led to more suffering without guns than with guns. Guns are undoubtedly a protection against suffering.

Why are more guns and lax gun laws a good thing?

1) It statistically deters crime in all specific cases, and does so well at it that it almost negates border crime rate biases in the few credible studies in support of gun control (which conveniently do not account for the very tangible negative of being a border state or bordered with a border state to a third world country with a drug war rivaling that of the middle east.

2) It is a freaking right just like freedom of speech. It is not for hunting, it is for protection against authority. It is laid out very clear why it exists, and I would hope the revelations of our government's activities over the past 30 years would help people remember just how evil authoritarians can be.

3) Guns teach people respect of power and authority.

4) Guns equalize the natural physical advantage men have over women. This gives them yet another tool with which to protect themselves should laws fail them.

If you really care about saving lives, and think banning things saves lives, go look at the first linked list. Start at number 1 and work your way down. Only then will arguments about banning guns be taken seriously. Anything short of that is just posturing and dangerous posturing at that. A statement made without merit that threatens the only amendment we have that protects all of our other amendments.

Make no mistake. Without the 2nd amendment, We'd not be having this discussion right now.

Demented.

Fuck guns. Disarm the world.

it going to happen.

just dont take the mark of the beast. they'll try to pass it off as safety then restrict your travel and ability to get a job.save your soul at this point

Its weird how country music fans (usually republicans) arent armed at the concert. Or how security wasnt armed for the events, especially with concerts being a target for attacks due to the amount of people being in there.

Those that claim access to guns doesn't make murder more likely. Here are the stats:

Murder rate (number of murders per 100,000 people) by region:

Americas: 16.3 Africa: 12.5 Europe: 3.0 Oceania: 3.0 Asia: 2.9

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

There's really no arguing with those numbers.

But how else can we perpetuate and justify our police state???

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/02/las-vegas-gunman-liked-to-gamble-listened-to-country-music-lived-quiet-retired-life-before-massacre/

Drudge posted this link to a WAPO article on the shooter. Does anyone else hit the paywall when clicking it? Is that normal to have it removed for a big story? Or is the CIA backed paper trying to push a govt approved narrative?

So the thing about the second amendment was it was written in a time when the average gun fired at a rate of 3-4 rounds/min. The "right to bear arms" seems perfectly reasonable when there were only a few selections of guns and rifles. Nowadays, we have guns that can fire 1000s of rounds/min...imagine the damage that can be caused by 1 person alone. So it becomes obvious that civilians shouldn't own these fully automatic weapons, but then why does the government get to?

The purpose of the bill of rights was to empower the people and give them the right to overthrow a government; if necessary. If they restrict our rights with gun control laws, they should abide by the same rules(of course, that's when "national security" becomes an issue). It doesn't matter how many guns US citizens can own if the government's militia has the best of the best.

it's a shame that people use these kind of events to push their political agendas

You Americans are crazy you know that right? Do you realise how you look from other countries when you continue spouting this nonsense after every mass shooting (Over 200 THIS YEAR ALONE btw) It's mental.

Less guns means less mass shooting of innocent people. Is that so hard to realise?

Yes, there will always be some maniac in a truck.. Since the incident in Nice, European cities are putting up barriers and are pedestrianising many areas.. It's been this way in my country for many years.. The roads are for traffic, the streets are for people.. We are taking preventative action so it doesn't happen again.. What are you doing to prevent a reoccurence of this sort of terrorist attack? A maniac with a knife might be able to kill two people before they're stopped, a maniac with a gun could kill a hundred people in ten seconds. A maniac in a truck can't get near big crowds anymore in Europe. The only thing right wing are pretty much saying "don't do anything, it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem". There is some truth to that but what are you going to do to prevent crazy people buying automatic weapons?? Nothing! You can be a blind, schizophrenic with a personality disorder and can buy guns in America. The constitution has been amended before, it can be done again

Truth. Another gun control argument is beginning.

What I find more important from all this is I'd consider casinos and big concerts like this as safe as can be. I mean, they typically pat you down or have metal detectors at all of these, so you do feel safe when there.

It's almost like this was intentionally done to show the American people they are not safe in any situation.

The propoganda arm of the nra really did you guys in well. Gun control will literally solve this problem. Las vegas gun laws are aome of the most lax in the country. The guy had over 30 guns. Look at australias mass shooting numbers after they seized 650,000 guns. They dropped. Guns will not protect you from the government because the government will kill you no matter what. They have nukes.

Lmao fucking dumbass americans and their

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction - Ronald Reagan

We need more guns! 300 million is not enough. Don't let anyone tell you gun control is the answer. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The government will strip us of our right to each own thousands of firearms. Even if there were no guns in America these things would still happen. More guns for Americans! More guns, more accessible!

No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

It happens far more than even Africa which is full of third world countries.

But hey, you’re trying real hard today to push those politics 👍

What?!? Then we are saying the same thing dude. I said not regulating one thing(guns) because there are other ways to commit the same crime (killing with cars) is a naive argument.

It's ironic that the conspiracy is that these events are false flags by the state to take your guns, but yet every time these massacres happen the pro-gun lobby gets stronger and sales increase.

There’s a whole subreddit devoted to that. But clearly you haven’t been on Twitter today.

Yes. A LOT of people want to take our guns. They want all of them, and the accessories. Don’t fucking kid yourself.

That the lie they fed to the AU public for years and years, and then rats orchestrated the fake hobart massacre.

I'm a liberal. I would like to have a conversation about what we as a society should do. While I want Americans to be able to have guns I also don't want events happening like this. I love the constitutions and have always believed that we need guys to prevent tyranny but I think we need to balance that with preventing terror. We need a good conversation of where the line should be.

Go to Australia and see what happened to the people who never thought their guns would be taken away.

Visit downtown Chicago for the night.

Thats you have a point about a lot of crime being stopped by civilians with guns. I think we would have to talk about specific GC laws. I think small scale crime is prevented by armed civilians. Home invasions/assaults/robberies. I think large scale crime like mass shootings aren't helped though. The singer said they had access to lots of legal guns in there tour bus but none of them helped because they couldn't even pick them up for fear of being thought by the police as a suspect. That struck me. They couldn't even pick up a gun. What do you think?

Name me a developed country that doesn’t struggle with these issues? Also, rap music? Really?

Very interesting read.

Rap music is a bit of a cyclical thing, considering it’s going to be based off the culture and upbringing of the artist. If their life was violent their music probably will be too.

Here's a nice vid of a guy saying they're not real gunshots: link!

Hopefully the link shows up.

Also theirs the picture of two guys in their cellphones while policeman are crouching around a police cruiser, as if their about to receive gunfire.

r/NOWTTYG

Oh look, you brought your friends.

Against the state of Cuba.

America didn't like Cuba. Call me shocked.

I would have to say the people that want all of them is pretty fringe. Most people just want regulation not total restriction.

"3% of gun related violence is committed with a legally purchased gun" - /u/gmil3538

They want to regulate not to completely take them that will never happen and you know that. You are avoiding actual discussion on how to approach the issue

Wow, nice to see a rationale thought in here.

I live in Canada. While it is far from perfect, I think we have a good balance here when it comes to firearms.

I will state upfront that I don't own a gun so perhaps I have a bias, however at no point in my life did I wish I had a gun. I don't feel 'deprived' or that my life is in any added level of danger. In fact my death is likely to come by way of an incident that would not be preventable by a gun. I'm more worried about being hit by a car than an incident that would be preventable had I had a firearm.

Anyway... if I wanted a firearm I understand the process to be fairly simple but enough to deter a crime of passion due to the fact that I can't just go out and bring a firearm home today. There is a course and some other stuff that needs to be undertaken.

As a bowhunter, I sometimes wish I had a side piece, but I do have other means to protect myself in a close encounter with an animal. I carry bear spray and a fixed blade. The only thing that worries me would be an by a wild cat (cougar), however not only are these rare, it is my understanding a gun won't help me much against an animal that quietly stalks and attacks it's prey. I've thought about a hunting rifle, but I don't rely on hunting nearly enough for a primary source of food.

Anyway, I think the US could potentially benefit from tighter gun legislation. There doesn't need to be an outright ban, but removing the ability to own certain guns and tighter control over procurement might help.

Did I read correctly today that the Vegas shooter bought thousands of rounds not long before the shooting? Why are Americans allowed to buy so many bullets over such a short time frame. I recognize you can accumulate ammo over time regardless, but what need is there for a that much ammo. Idon't buy ammo here in Canada, but I understand that I would not be able to buy that much ammo over a short period of time.

Because it's impossible to shoot semi autos rapidly. This guy would have arguably been more deadly if he had aimed his shots deliberately instead of spraying and praying.

Every southern state would enforce it. A individual might resist but the country as a whole is law abiding. People don't want to loss their homes, freedom, cushy government jobs to protect their guns. It's just not worth it to 90% of people to break the law. Look at whats happened so far. Inch by inch it's happening. No war and just like I said the people not complying are arrested. If they use violence they are arrest or killed. I aslo think you are wrong that the vast majority of the military wouldn't side with the government. Te government pays them. They give them their place to sleep. Their pride is in they're service to the country. You would be hard pressed to tell me the military would want to rebel over fire arms. Killing innocent people maybe but we would be talking about criminals. People who attacked police officers. No one is going to have any respect for them. They will all think you where given a peaceful choice and you choose to not follow the law. So I think they side with the people that pay them to follow the law.

You clearly haven't watched the videos. Or graduated high school.

Google a “bump stock”. It basically turns an AR15 into a full auto. I had no idea these existed

they were talking about metal detectors in hotels.

That would work out well (/s) considering almost everyone has something metal that they put in their suitcases.

If they had guns, how many casualties do you think they would have?

Yeah we live in a group with other people. We have to have guidelines for the safety of everyone.

Likewise, I enjoyed the chat. Take care.

Of course we could. Some cave-dwelling inbreds did it with 80s Russian weaponry.

'Europe would be perfect' You've obviously never been to Slough in England, or Toxteth for that matter.

Calm down champ, I'm not blaming your guns. I'm saying that any Joe fuckwad shouldn't be able to buy a device that gives them automatic weapon capabilities. Tell me you at least agree with that?

Also if Trucks had no other primary purpose for most people besides potential murder tools, I'd say we should at least implement some smart rules regarding them. Trucks get a pass because they're basically a necessity for society as we know it to function-- the risk of its use as a murder tool is a calculated acceptance we all agree to live with.

You seem to have this mindset that guns are just as needed in life as trucks somehow? Sorry, your shooting range permit is not as important in society than a CDL. You don't need 40 rifles the same way you need an automobile to get to work in the morning.

Do you need the current status quo so badly regarding guns that you feel the occasional mass murder is acceptable? That we should continue this transaction of allowing things like automatic weapon mods and bump stocks, paid with the cost of human lives every so often?

I'm all for target shooting, plinking, hunting, competition, and home defense. I just think we can manage to enjoy all those while still being reasonable about how we exchange weapons. I truly don't understand how people like you think it'd be impossible to maintain those hobbies after any sort of gun legislation takes affect.

Is an auto weapon mod ban really going to ruin the hobby you love?

Also, this is like saying the nuclear bomb proliferation shouldn't be blamed for potential nuclear war. They'd get the nuclear bombs somewhere, eventually if they don't already have it.

Yeah, maybe-- but, in this analogy, what the fuck are we doing making it easier and easier for them? Should we start handing out nuclear bomb designs and enriched uranium to various countries, because they're just going to get access to it somehow eventually anyways?

It's a ridiculous argument. Provide less food to a fat kid and he loses weight. You're arguing the opposite-- that we should give him as much food as he wants and treat his "mental problems" instead?

So you're disputing that a gun's main purpose is to kill? It's not even dual use. All it can do is shoot projectiles at targets. Just like a hammer is designed to deliver an impact on a target, but a hammer has multiple non-lethal uses and killing things isn't its main purpose.

Lol no. Sheriffs would not enforce it. Governers would not enforce it. The military would be sent in, who would not enforce it. You vastly underestimate how red law enforcement and the military is, and I don't think I can make you see that.

Ah. I thought it was just a little more than that. My bad

What sub am I in rn, cus when I see shit like this I’m convinced this isn’t r/conspiracy

Yah, of course it won't. Definitely not with so many guns in the general population and with the current mindset.

But I don't see the point of being allowed to own AK-47s and the such. Why not ban anything other than guns and hunting rifles and let the government buy back everything else? Or just mandate that everything apart from guns/hunting rifles has to be stored securely at gun ranges with 2+ keys needed to retrieve and required to stay on that property.

Well, first of all - thanks for engaging in discussion. We actually agree on some points.

Where would you draw the line between weapons that actually have a use in self defence and weapons that haven't? I think handguns and pistols should be exempt because they have a use as self defense weapons, hunting rifles and shotguns because they have a use in hunting. Considering the conditions and reality in the US, you should be able to keep those at home. Everything else, selective fire rifles, extended mags, etc should be kept at the gun range.

For the (imo quite outlandish) scenario that shit hits the fan in a way that government collapses to a point where it can't enforce this (basic) gun control anymore, that should be more than enough to clear any zombies in your path to the gun range where you can retrieve your heavier weapons.

My idea was more about social control/responsibility being facilitated by laws. If you were required to interact with other people because they have a responsibility for keeping you and your heavier guns safe at the gun range, they might be able to spot when someone becomes dangerous to others or themselves. More failsafes, basically. Still not perfect protection, but I think it might be a good balance between individual rights and trying to get spree killings under control. There would still be gun violence, but at least you'd have an upper limit on the number of people someone kills in a spree, so to speak.

Again, my perspective is different, considering I'm in a country where you just don't assume that someone you run into on the street could pull a gun on you. Government is stable enough and has enough fail safes that I don't expect a collapse. No regular natural disasters (except for occasional flooding) that disrupt infrastructure for more than a few days.

I'll stand with you on that fully. I have a CHL and would feel comfortable selling only to other CHL holders private party.

/r/EndTheDrugWar

It's no looser than yours.

Indeed, since I'm clearly referring to mine I'd say that makes sense.

Restrict dangerous alternatives in favor of safer ones as a preventative measure.

Uh huh. Sounds great, until you stop to think about the fact that we're discussing firearms and the only danger lies in the user.

By your logic why should we have preventative laws against anything if "users" are just going to act how they wish?

I'm not sure where you've determined this as my logic. I'm fine with background checks and keeping felons from buying guns. I would love for private sellers to have access to background checks.

What I'm not fine with is vague "prevention" that doesn't do anything further to stop these incidents. I'm not fine with people like you being willing to decide that I should give up my rights based on the actions of the very few.

Again, it's not meant to be a cure-all. But let's at least try to make it harder to kill at such a massive scale.

It's always amusing when your type pretends there aren't already measures in place. You demand the "100%" prevention and refuse to recognize that these incidents are extreme outliers in relation to the number of guns in circulation.

You're talking about 13,000 or so gun homicides each year out of hundreds of millions of people and guns, and only a small percentage of those are random, non-gang related shooters. You have 99%+ not being used for illegal violence and it's not good enough.

I frankly don't care what you call it. 200+ year old documents often need facelifts.

I wondered if you'd ever get around to some honesty. It's always the same with you folks: "No one is trying to take your guns, we just don't want anyone to have guns". Blah, blah, blah.

Well here's a news flash for you: even if you were able to pull off a repeal you would succeed only in making a black market for illegal buyers. You would stop absolutely nothing except the hundred thousand or so people who use them to protect themselves every year. You would serve the country up on a platter to every criminal, gang and malicious government agency, then cry about some other non-issue that you'll definitely fix this time.

Here's another news flash: the country doesn't want a repeal. It's that simple.

I'd love to see you keep a straight face while telling me this crime could have been committed at the same scale using only handguns.

I'd like to see you tell me with a straight face that rifles are suddenly a problem considering their use in violent crime is so rare.

I can't disagree with one part of the Constitution? If I think 2A is outdated and in need of revision, I must necessarily think the rest is garbage, too?

This is why I don't like people like you. You can't think. You latch onto this one idea and get tunnel vision.

Use your head. Say you get rid of the 2A. Now you have some 2-300,000,000 guns in the country that are illegal, and in many areas every household has at least one.

Are you going to offer to buy them back at fair market value? No, it would cost far too much. So you would rely on some few voluntarily turning in their guns, then go after those who did not.

So besides the fact that you as the government just robbed people who committed no crime of their money and possessions, you also have another problem: people aren't honest, especially when it comes to protecting what's theirs.

You have no way to know if that person who turned in one gun has ten more buried somewhere or hidden in their basement. You have no idea who all is in possession of these guns because there is no federal registry and even if there were there's no way to track private sales and gifts. And even if there were, there's no reason to believe most people would comply with it because they saw this coming a mile away.

So what are your options?

You would have to go door to door searching every home, every nook and cranny, every property. You would have to open deposit boxes in banks and use metal detectors in yards.

And you would have to do all this without any due process or legitimate warrants. In short, you would turn America into a complete and total police state, and very likely trigger a civil war in the process.

You would take good, law abiding people who believe that the government grants privileges, not rights and turn them into criminals.

All for what? A promise of safety that can't be kept?

I said 600. Call it 500. Call it 400. Call it 300. How many is enough for you to realize that legal ownership of these types of guns is problematic?

A hell of a lot more than 13,000 or so when hundreds of millions of guns are owned.

If your claim holds any water then gun violence should be going up as ownership goes up. But it's not.

If your claim holds any water then there should be hundreds of thousands or more dead by gun violence every year. But there's not.

It's easy pretty easy to see if you don't have a season pass to ride the emotional rollercoaster every time it takes off.

No use other than killing people. Damn, I guess I've been using my guns wrong all these years. Thousands of bullets shot and not a single person killed, how is this possible!? Home defense, hunting, target shooting, defense against government tyranny. Hammers are only useful for hitting in nails and murder, so we should ban them.

Do you understand the difference between comparison and analogy? It sure doesn't seem like it.

Go take a time out, champ. You're starting to lose your edge.