Vegas: The US is Not Mature Enough for Guns

hahahaha fucking watertrash hillbillies think that guns are the same as vehicles. anything can kill...food, water, breathing city air... but none of these things are mass manufactured to cause harm/destruction.

I honestly can't tell if america is just a bunch of stubborn kooks that don't know how to argue or if you're actually fundamentally pants-on-head completely fucking retarded.

I'm not anti gun either. it's just that when you hear gun people talk about guns it places all the normal people in the same boat as a bunch of asinine trailer park clowns. but I guess that's the difference between "#1" and the rest of the world... if you believe something then it's automatically true!

milk_manYeah but we're talking about driving a car on public roads with other people. To carry a gun among the public you need training and a permit.

You don't need some sort of certification to buy a car. That would be the logical parallel to saying we should be more strict about selling guns. So it's an interesting analogy but it's not quite what I'd be looking for to try to convince someone of anything

You can legally carry a gun around in public with no training. I think some sort of safety training should be required to buy a gun. This wouldn't stop mass shooting probably, but there are to many idiots that treat owning a gun like its a game and could use some education, that way everyone that owns a gun is a little more responsible. Something similar to a hunters safety course.

.frenchywhere is the correlation between firearms and small dicks? sorry you have mental problems and can't purchase an assault rifle, you're missing out.

As far as I can tell, there's definitely a correlation between being an anxious little bitch and proudly owning an assault rifle as a civilian.
#butmuhfeels #muhsafespace #dootdoot

milk_manYeah I don't think a lot of these people would pursue other ways of killing people necessarily. This guy could have been way more effective and killed way more people with something other than guns in this situation. But what he did was the simplest way for him to be a psycho so he went with that

I love how no one thought it was suspicious when he legally bought 30+ rifles whiting a month. Like it didn't raise any questions. No one thought of informing the local authorities. I think that's the main issue here. That should be a major red flag, but no one cared. Business is business, I guess...

TheDoughAbidesAs far as I can tell, there's definitely a correlation between being an anxious little bitch and proudly owning an assault rifle as a civilian.
#butmuhfeels #muhsafespace #dootdoot

I'm sorry you feel that way, I truly am.

.frenchyThere's no amendment about the right to bear trucks. you arent going to infringe on my second amendment dude, try all you want. pletny of real americans in congress still

There's also no amendment that specifically gives you the right to bear GUNS either. The 2nd amendment grants us the right to bear ARMS (armaments), which is military weapons and equipment. It does not solely mean guns, but it does not not mean guns. But the 2nd amendment does not grant us the right to own any and all ARMS- many are thoroughly illegal (explosive missiles, poison gas, etc.). Our culture has fallen in love with one specific armament (the gun) and wants the 2nd amendment to pertain to it and protect it. We've deemed some arms to be ok (guns) and some arms to not be ok (poison gas). Therefore, it is thoroughly possible (but not at all probable) that someday guns, like high explosives or poison gas, could be 100% outlawed in the USA and it does not infringe upon anything said in the 2nd amendment. That people are focusing this discussion on guns just shows the amount of mental gymnastics required to justify your love for guns in modern day America. You love your guns and want the 2nd amendment to continue to apply to it.

But, don't assume that I want all guns to be banned or that I hate guns. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I just wish we didn't have to play "Old Testament Mental Gymnastics" with an antiquated amendment written in 1791 that was expressly written for a "well regulated militia" and needs to be parsed and massaged in order to apply to the right to self-defense, which is what it should be and needs to be.

The referenced post has been removed.

Triggered

TheDoughAbidesAs far as I can tell, there's definitely a correlation between being an anxious little bitch and proudly owning an assault rifle as a civilian.
#butmuhfeels #muhsafespace #dootdoot

uh oh! retard alert!

The root of the problem is that the United States in general completely ignores mental health issues. My whackjob right wing cousins always mention these types of people as "the crazies" and they say DAMN THEM TO HELL. Fuck you, stop putting the blame on them and point the finger at yourself. If these mass shooters had access to therapy and medication they wouldn't rationalize murdering this many people in one go. It's not guns (though gun control makes a lot sense), it's the United States being lazy as fuck and the getting absorbed into cancerous ego that patriotism creates where people get thinking that the problem is always someone else's fault.

john18061806The root of the problem is that the United States in general completely ignores mental health issues. My whackjob right wing cousins always mention these types of people as "the crazies" and they say DAMN THEM TO HELL. Fuck you, stop putting the blame on them and point the finger at yourself. If these mass shooters had access to therapy and medication they wouldn't rationalize murdering this many people in one go. It's not guns (though gun control makes a lot sense), it's the United States being lazy as fuck and the getting absorbed into cancerous ego that patriotism creates where people get thinking that the problem is always someone else's fault.

Yeah man, it's not dealing with therapy and mental health care issues that cause "mass shootings"... in a country with the most antidepressant prescriptions and therapy sessions on the planet. Maybe the definition of "mass shooting" is something to think about. In Finnish media, I hear shit like "there are 'mass shootings' in the USA every day" yet we don't hear about them. Point being, there are gang and drug related shootings in the USA every fucking day. Legal, illegal arms? Who gives a fuck. That's your problem. Not some lone whacko (if he was alone) killing people. This guy managed to kill 59 by now, yet in a year in some city like Chicago or Washington D.C. you'll have body counts to rival that one all day erry day basically. I just wish people weren't so fucking retarded as to not see the root cause of these issues and not some reactionary bullshit when there's one night with a few more bodies that quote unquote someone cares about.

Mike-OYeah man, it's not dealing with therapy and mental health care issues that cause "mass shootings"... in a country with the most antidepressant prescriptions and therapy sessions on the planet. Maybe the definition of "mass shooting" is something to think about. In Finnish media, I hear shit like "there are 'mass shootings' in the USA every day" yet we don't hear about them. Point being, there are gang and drug related shootings in the USA every fucking day. Legal, illegal arms? Who gives a fuck. That's your problem. Not some lone whacko (if he was alone) killing people. This guy managed to kill 59 by now, yet in a year in some city like Chicago or Washington D.C. you'll have body counts to rival that one all day erry day basically. I just wish people weren't so fucking retarded as to not see the root cause of these issues and not some reactionary bullshit when there's one night with a few more bodies that quote unquote someone cares about.

Nobody gives a fuck if people get shot in the hood. People only care if it comes too close to their normal lives. That's just how we roll.

Mike-OYeah man,

I love what you just said. It's a combination and there's no doubt that the United States is the moat unintelligent first world country out there. The freedom to own tools to kill other humans is fucking ridiculous. Americans are obsessed with the thought that "all men are created equal" but that's a delusion. Everyone is created differently, raised differently, thinks differently and the lack of understanding of our differences behind this is what drives so much of the hatred between everyone over here.

theabortionatorNobody gives a fuck if people get shot in the hood. People only care if it comes too close to their normal lives. That's just how we roll.

Sarcasm or not, then people saying shit like "18,000 gun deaths in a year" should specify where and why these happened.

Good ol' fashioned "mass killings" are a few and far between, be it terrorism or random violence. As I said before, you should divide the number of gun related deaths by the amount of guns in the country and then start comparisons. After that, you should zero out most hunting related stuff (bu country again) and re-evaluate. I'm quite certain that in the end we'll be looking at numbers that say nothing against "guns" but gang and drug related crime in the US (which is rampant).

Mike-OSarcasm or not, then people saying shit like "18,000 gun deaths in a year" should specify where and why these happened.

Good ol' fashioned "mass killings" are a few and far between, be it terrorism or random violence. As I said before, you should divide the number of gun related deaths by the amount of guns in the country and then start comparisons. After that, you should zero out most hunting related stuff (bu country again) and re-evaluate. I'm quite certain that in the end we'll be looking at numbers that say nothing against "guns" but gang and drug related crime in the US (which is rampant).

Decriminalizing the droogz would do lot to drop the inner city numbers as well as curbing some gun sales in those areas. Nobody is ever going to work doubles at McDicks to save up to buy an uzi in case anyone tries to snag their saturday night shift.

But we won't be making any efforts for tat anytime soon.

theabortionatorDecriminalizing the droogz would do lot to drop the inner city numbers as well as curbing some gun sales in those areas. Nobody is ever going to work doubles at McDicks to save up to buy an uzi in case anyone tries to snag their saturday night shift.But we won't be making any efforts for tat anytime soon.

GORILLAWALLACEu don't get it bro, if everyone has guns, nobody gets shot.


ever

cool, the issue is, I would hate to see some G.I. Jerry come under fire and the first thing they do is just start popping rounds off into some random persons hotel room... If a 1/4 of the crowd getting shot at was armed and also not properly trained on using a gun in a crowded space along with law enforcement officers, that death toll could have easily gotten higher.

This isn't the fucking Wild West, I highly doubt I will go through life wishing I had carried a gun on me unless I had a job where I required one, and even then I wouldn't flash it around like I'm John Wayne or some dude from Sons of Anarchy.

Mike-OMaybe the definition of "mass shooting" is something to think about.

I think it's when someone kills 4 or more people with a firearm?
But even if you only count the "big ones", that's still a lot compared to other "developed" countries. And it's been happening for a while.

BrawnTrendsI think it's when someone kills 4 or more people with a firearm?
But even if you only count the "big ones", that's still a lot compared to other "developed" countries. And it's been happening for a while.

Again, the definition. There seems to be no clear consensus on what is a "mass shooting". Apparently your congress has named it mass killing in 2013 and it involves three murders without a cooling-off period. Others seem to call a mass shooting anything where four people are either killed OR injured. Hell, take the latter route and it's mass shootings every day in the US of A with ghetto drive-bys. If there isn't even a clear consensus about what a term that's used quite often and sometimes out of place can be defined as, I doubt you can start enacting policy changes based on that. As I said before, I don't think much will change and this Vegas thing will be but a hint of a memory by the year's end.

As I said earlier:

"As I said before, I don't think much will change and this Vegas thing will be but a hint of a memory by the year's end".

It's only been a few weeks and this thing has mostly been forgotten and /or sweeped away by other news.

The NV sheriff who earlier said the shooter must have had accomplices now has reverted his testimony. No matter what happened and/if there actually was some faggot who just went ahead and killed 60 people because he felt like it, one should look at what happened before, during and after. If "facts" start to change more and more as time goes by, maybe there is more to this than what has been brought out.

@robotdna and others with arguments… I’ll write my arguments below but probably won’t retort do to me feeling down.

Firstly, this posts headline is sensationalized garbage. 'You' might not be mature enough to own a gun but most who use them for home defense purposes are.
________

There is no middle ground when it comes to banning guns. The Far-Left, including people like Bloomberg and Pelosi would want nothing else but to ban all semi-automatics. AR-15's are the number one source of home defense in the US. There were 10,000 homicides due to guns last year and a total of 20,000 suicides, something the media and most ignorant people refuse to realize. Some would say that banning guns will help to stop suicide, although this might decrease the amount to a sml. degree almost always violent crime increases, so in my defense I'd say that despite the waiting periods and licensing with safety training, which is always a good idea, the decrease in numbers of suicides is far outnumbered by crimes prevented. You don’t need to have a criminal record to want to kill yourself, so if someone has no criminal record, how are you going to deny them from having a gun without completely abolishing the 2nd amendment. Has anyone considered the ramifications of allowing a constitutional amendment revoked, Would that NOT set a dangerous precedent?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Census reports, anywhere from 200,000 and 3 million of using guns defensivley, and to take that away? There's no middle ground with this, yet for some reason many leftists have state legislation in the works proposing to ban the ar-15 from the public. That means you'd take away the most vital and most common home defense weapon in the US. So, my question becomes why ban this rifle, it makes zero sense and I'll tell you why.

Firstly, bolt action is nowhere close to as good as a semi-automatic when it comes to hunting. Most pistols are semi-automatic, yet legislators propose to ban semi-auto's as if they even know what that means. In fact, automatic guns are virtually banned. Why do some of the strictest gun control metropolitan areas have the highest gun violence and highest gun homicide rate? Why does California have the higest gun violence rate and gun homicides compared to almost all other states in the US if they have the strictest gun control in the country. 4 cities, which have the strictest gun control in the country account for 25% of all gun related incidents. France has some of the strictest gun control in the world and yet they still have mass shootings. So, is gun control the answer?

In the case of Chicago, which has the strictest gun laws in the US they've had a total of 500 murders since the beginning of this year. If a criminal wants to kill someone, they will acquire a gun illegally. They will use a car, which in a crowd can be far more deadly than a gun, in the case of NICE which killed 87 people, a knife or machete in the case of the China massacre, which killed 34 or a sword, anything!

The current gun laws, which should be enforced make it impossible for criminals with a record to purchase a gun. Most crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms in the hands of people wo are prohibited from purchasing or possessing them. Laws only affect people who obey them... not criminals. It's an incredibly simple concept that many liberals fail to understand.

So, handguns and shotguns account for most gun related incidents in the US. Over 90%! Rifles account for 2.4%, and the AR-15 being a subset of a rifle is even less so. So banning this from the public, which of course it being the most common home defense weapon makes little sense, when it comes to COMBATING GUN VIOLENCE. Even if a ban meant getting rid of the AR-15 and high powered rifles, very few mass shootings are conducted with high powered rifles. The AR-15 is only a 5.56, which is far less powerful than the 7.62 round of a battle rifle or even a hunting rifle. Like I’ve stated, fast rate of fire weapons are banned in the US. The US banned machine guns from civilian purchase under the 1986 FOPA. Obviously, some are grandfathered in, but they are never used in crime and cost tens of thousands of dollars.

So then why would they want to ban it? Do they not trust us with this weapon or is the government threatened by us? Seems like that's the case seeing a populace can not have liberty if the government does not fear them. Look at the ever growing state of domestic intelligence where they store and organize everyone's data. The government fears its people, and with fear comes stability and a check on the government. KEEP IN MIND, despite what the media claims, gun violence since the 80's has decreased 53%, whereas as the gun homicide rate has decreased 47%, whilst private gun ownership has increased. So, there is an inverse correlation. Gun violence and gun homicide rate has lessened to a significant degree and yet there are proposals to ban the AR-15 from law-abiding citizens of which accounts for less than 2% of gun related incidents!!!!
_________

Liberals will say, "ANY citizen with a gun is NO match and no more than a speed bump to an organized government funded military force."

I'd argue that if it ever came to a civil war or if the government imposed martial law due to a collapsing economy, such a scenario would never come to pass anyways because the citizenry is armed.

If you disarm the citizens and many law makers propose this through a slow implementation of gun restrictions and later a blanket ban, what SAFEGUARDS are there against the government ever becoming oppressive as it has become, increasingly so. What could we do to stop it? Don’t act like this is simply impossible because it has happened many, many times historically.

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety” -Franklin

Mass shootings kill very few people, it’s just such a high profile and emotionally charged thing people freak out and are scared enough to say “screw liberty I want security.

Why aren’t you not on some vendetta against drunk drivers killing 10,000 people a year or pharmacutical drugs killing astanomically more people. Would you give up your right to drink to save these people? I should note, I'm not against making it harder for those with mental problems to obtain firearms.

Of course a balance between safety and liberty is important but giving up our most important right in exchange for such a minuscule sense of security (not even 100 deaths per year by mass shootings on avg.) is ridiculous. How about the 12 deaths a day in the US alone due to “sharp objects”. 12 murders. Every single day in the US. Every 5 days, more people die due to stabbings then the largest mass shooting of all time in the US. How do we stop that?

None of the other rights we have MEAN ANYTHING if there is NO ABILITY to ENFORCE THEM! Just like a law will mean nothing if there is no ability to enforce it by either gun point or repercussion. How do we secure these right; the checks against government by way of votes, which can be manipulated and an armed citizenry.

**This post was edited on Oct 14th 2017 at 6:59:31pm

BrawnTrendsI love how no one thought it was suspicious when he legally bought 30+ rifles whiting a month. Like it didn't raise any questions. No one thought of informing the local authorities. I think that's the main issue here. That should be a major red flag, but no one cared. Business is business, I guess...

There were multiple shooters and the offical story is starting not to make any sense with the recent gag orders. Follow the money and you'll see what the shooting really entailed. There was a single video of which funny enough the witness is deceased that depicted multiple shooters and these were clearly not gun reports. The video was censored and deleted off of facebook, youtube and almost every other site. I don't trust the FBI for a minute with their entrapment crap.

Unless you live in a rural area where law enforcement/ems cant reach you quickly, the self-defense argument is total bullshit. If you keep a gun in your house you are approximately 40% more likely to be murdered and 244% more likely to blow your brains out. For every situation in which a gun is lawfully used for self defense there are four unintentional shootings, seven instances in which a gun is used to harm or murder an innocent person, and eleven attempted or completed suicides.

TheDoughAbidesUnless you live in a rural area where law enforcement/ems cant reach you quickly, the self-defense argument is total bullshit. If you keep a gun in your house you are approximately 40% more likely to be murdered and 244% more likely to blow your brains out. For every situation in which a gun is lawfully used for self defense there are four unintentional shootings, seven instances in which a gun is used to harm or murder an innocent person, and eleven attempted or completed suicides.

Any source for those statisitcs. How about the amount used without firing a shot? You are cherry picking without linking a source. It's my right to own a gun for private use and protection. What gives you the right to take it from me, for my own safety? And despite the declining gun violence and gun homicide rate, you want to ban guns for private citizens.

**This post was edited on Oct 14th 2017 at 8:18:04pm

fuckmekevinAny source for those statisitcs. How about the amount used without firing a shot? You are cherry picking without linking a source. It's my right to own a gun for private use and protection. What gives you the right to take it from me, for my own safety? And despite the declining gun violence and gun homicide rate, you want to ban guns for private citizens.

**This post was edited on Oct 14th 2017 at 8:18:04pm

Calm down, brah. Why do you assume I want to take away your guns? I just don't think citizens need easy access to assault weapons. I have no problem hunters or people who shoot targets, but you don't an assault weapon to do either of those things. If you really want to carry assualt weapons that bad then follow Frenchy and join the military. However, the notion that having a gun in your home makes you safer is a complete myth. Your claim that gun violence is on the decline only applies in states that already have strict gun control. People who live in right to carry states are significantly more likely to experience gun violence.

Sources:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

inb4 "those dudes are biased and evil broh, they just want to take muh freedoms! Read these daily caller and brietbart articles!"

TheDoughAbidesCalm down, brah. Why do you assume I want to take away your guns? I just don't think citizens need easy access to assault weapons. I have no problem hunters or people who shoot targets, but you don't an assault weapon to do either of those things. If you really want to carry assualt weapons that bad then follow Frenchy and join the military. However, the notion that having a gun in your home makes you safer is a complete myth. Your claim that gun violence is on the decline only applies in states that already have strict gun control. People who live in right to carry states are significantly more likely to experience gun violence.

Sources:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502000490
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

inb4 "those dudes are biased and evil broh, they just want to take muh freedoms! Read these daily caller and brietbart articles!"

So, you'd ban assault rifles, including the Ar-15. You realize this would do nothing to combat the gun homicide rate, as assault rifles account for a small percentage of gun relaated gun crime and gun homicides. What gives you the right to want to ban something that is the most common weapon for home defense? Will you go after handguns, which statistically are far deadlier and account for 90% of gun related crime?

As I've said before, an armed populace is one that can resist if need be. Governments have stepped over boundaries before and ours may do so as well. Its not likely, but possible. It doesn't take a sophisticated army as long as they have the proper weapons. A single shot or bolt action weapon is no match for a semi-automatic. Tanks and planes are no replacement for ground troops in a conflict, so at least having access to comparable weapons can make the difference and keep our government in check. And with an ever-increasing surveillance state, a militarized police, passed bills and legislation that infringes on our due process and our individual liberties; I'd argue that the 2nd amendment is as important as it was back during the British colony days. You'd be okay with giving up a subset of a rifle, which is the most common home defense weapon to our government? A government that has on both the left and right expanded the domestic watchlist on enviormentalists?

Whenever we are making any law, we have to consider the future and if we think our government will always be benevolent. (Or if its benevolent right now) Take mass surveillence for instance. It might not botuer you much that this government is doing whats its doing. It might not bother you that every character you type or idea you share is logged. It might not bother you that NSA data and technology are being shared with local police departments. Now, all the laws we pass that allow for this surveillence commissions all furture Presidents and government employees with the ability to use these tools. Are you really comfortable with a President Trump not only having access too all these programs, but also expanding their powers, drastically changing their intent or otherwise being responsible for all the mass surveilleince data out there? What if we get another J Edgar in office? Will the governemnt always be "benevolent"? Do we want to allow a President to secretly authorize the invasive surveilence of all immigrants in order to find " things" to deport them for?

Everyone breaks law - everyone. There are so many laws of the books it is literally impossible to not break them (unwilingly and possibly without nefarious intent). Right now "terrorists" are the "target", but who knows who will be an enemy in the future. Who knows if skeptics of our government or conspiracy theorists, enviormentalists won't be termed terrorists in the future?

The laws we pass now are applicable for all presidents and agencies to use in the future, for whatever they deem a "problem". This is why they founding fathers advocated for limiting government power. All the founding principals are limiting in nature - "shall not infringe". Whatever supporting an idea, please spend time thinking about how an non-benevolent or otherwise opposite controlling party could use the same authories and laws. Laws can be used by anyone controlling congress and the government. It might be Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, Green Party, etc. Laws are forever.

The data colected now is forever. All future authorities can use the data collected now against a segment of the population in the future. That segmemt could be "mexicans" or "environmentalists" or BLM, or "anti-cop" or "privacy advocates" or "libertarians". Basically, anyone at all they decide are a "threat". And it seems even increasingly possible since the executive order of te patriot act and NDAA 2012.

If tyranny is not a concern, than you are ignoring history. Plus, there aren't enough drones in this country to take out half a million armed citizens marching on Washington if it ever came down to that. And I know it sounds pretty Alex Jones-tier but being able to resist tyranny is very important for any democracy and a staple of resistance is an armed militia.
There's a quote by Orwell that summarizes the importance of having an armed populace:

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

Now civic engagement is vastly important for any supposed democracy. However, having an armed populace means having a populace that could resist, which may be just as important. Its extremely unlikely that armed engagements would happen but the ability to resist when a government has turned is very important. For reference, look at the disarmament of Soviets before mass executions.

Of course, we shouldn't retaliate for political decisions that we just don't like but intervene when there are human rights violations, unconstitutional martial law, etc.

Look at Switzerland for example. During Feldschiessen they use SIG 550 assault rifles as well as SIG 510's for home use and sport shooting.

The 550 is the same caliber as thr AR-15 and was based off of thr ak-47u. The 510 is a battle rifle shoots a larger caliber than the AR and is commonly used for hunting throughout Europe for its accuracy and low recoil. Switzerland has very low gun crime and gun homocide rate, yet even children are encouraged to learn how to operate them. The have a very high gun ownership per capita. but some of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Lower than even thr UK.

Now is it because it's so hard to obtain a rifle in Switzerland, well no. All you need is a WES, a background check for criminal activity and your ID. No psych analysis's, no tests, etc. So is it the kinds of guns that are causing the crime that we see in the US, or is it poverty, education, desperation and mental illness due to all the factors above.

In the case of Switzerland, they have great social programs that combat mental illness, a proper healthcare system, and a good education system, unlike the public schooling here in the US.

The country trusts its citizens with guns, because the majority of people trust there government. In the US, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Can you show me a country that had a noticible drop in homicide rate after a gun ban in any country?

Rifles were used in 248 murders last year, while pistols were used in 5568 murders last year. It would do nothing.

https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

And if your retort is Australia, I'd argue that the US has seen a similer drastic decrease in gun homicides since the 1980's.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

If banning has no real difference in murder rates then there is no legitimate reason for them to be banned. With laws you need reasons to forbid something, not to allow it. Otherwise you have a totalitarian oppressive government. So, now the , why do you and your government want to ban a gun that accounts for such little gun crime?

So, no noticable change and billions of dollars in taxes to ban them. Mind as well just keep the Ar-15 where it belongs and where it will continue to be thr most common home defense weapon in the US. I wouldn't even consider the AR a powerful weapon, not compared to most hunting rifles. Is it because it look like it is a military rifle, are you afraid of black gunz?

**This post was edited on Oct 15th 2017 at 12:00:07am

fuckmekevin@robotdna and others with arguments… I’ll write my arguments below but probably won’t retort do to me feeling down.

Firstly, this posts headline is sensationalized garbage. 'You' might not be mature enough to own a gun but most who use them for home defense purposes are.
________

There is no middle ground when it comes to banning guns. The Far-Left, including people like Bloomberg and Pelosi would want nothing else but to ban all semi-automatics. AR-15's are the number one source of home defense in the US. There were 10,000 homicides due to guns last year and a total of 20,000 suicides, something the media and most ignorant people refuse to realize. Some would say that banning guns will help to stop suicide, although this might decrease the amount to a sml. degree almost always violent crime increases, so in my defense I'd say that despite the waiting periods and licensing with safety training, which is always a good idea, the decrease in numbers of suicides is far outnumbered by crimes prevented. You don’t need to have a criminal record to want to kill yourself, so if someone has no criminal record, how are you going to deny them from having a gun without completely abolishing the 2nd amendment. Has anyone considered the ramifications of allowing a constitutional amendment revoked, Would that NOT set a dangerous precedent?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Census reports, anywhere from 200,000 and 3 million of using guns defensivley, and to take that away? There's no middle ground with this, yet for some reason many leftists have state legislation in the works proposing to ban the ar-15 from the public. That means you'd take away the most vital and most common home defense weapon in the US. So, my question becomes why ban this rifle, it makes zero sense and I'll tell you why.

Firstly, bolt action is nowhere close to as good as a semi-automatic when it comes to hunting. Most pistols are semi-automatic, yet legislators propose to ban semi-auto's as if they even know what that means. In fact, automatic guns are virtually banned. Why do some of the strictest gun control metropolitan areas have the highest gun violence and highest gun homicide rate? Why does California have the higest gun violence rate and gun homicides compared to almost all other states in the US if they have the strictest gun control in the country. 4 cities, which have the strictest gun control in the country account for 25% of all gun related incidents. France has some of the strictest gun control in the world and yet they still have mass shootings. So, is gun control the answer?

In the case of Chicago, which has the strictest gun laws in the US they've had a total of 500 murders since the beginning of this year. If a criminal wants to kill someone, they will acquire a gun illegally. They will use a car, which in a crowd can be far more deadly than a gun, in the case of NICE which killed 87 people, a knife or machete in the case of the China massacre, which killed 34 or a sword, anything!

The current gun laws, which should be enforced make it impossible for criminals with a record to purchase a gun. Most crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms in the hands of people wo are prohibited from purchasing or possessing them. Laws only affect people who obey them... not criminals. It's an incredibly simple concept that many liberals fail to understand.

So, handguns and shotguns account for most gun related incidents in the US. Over 90%! Rifles account for 2.4%, and the AR-15 being a subset of a rifle is even less so. So banning this from the public, which of course it being the most common home defense weapon makes little sense, when it comes to COMBATING GUN VIOLENCE. Even if a ban meant getting rid of the AR-15 and high powered rifles, very few mass shootings are conducted with high powered rifles. The AR-15 is only a 5.56, which is far less powerful than the 7.62 round of a battle rifle or even a hunting rifle. Like I’ve stated, fast rate of fire weapons are banned in the US. The US banned machine guns from civilian purchase under the 1986 FOPA. Obviously, some are grandfathered in, but they are never used in crime and cost tens of thousands of dollars.

So then why would they want to ban it? Do they not trust us with this weapon or is the government threatened by us? Seems like that's the case seeing a populace can not have liberty if the government does not fear them. Look at the ever growing state of domestic intelligence where they store and organize everyone's data. The government fears its people, and with fear comes stability and a check on the government. KEEP IN MIND, despite what the media claims, gun violence since the 80's has decreased 53%, whereas as the gun homicide rate has decreased 47%, whilst private gun ownership has increased. So, there is an inverse correlation. Gun violence and gun homicide rate has lessened to a significant degree and yet there are proposals to ban the AR-15 from law-abiding citizens of which accounts for less than 2% of gun related incidents!!!!
_________

Liberals will say, "ANY citizen with a gun is NO match and no more than a speed bump to an organized government funded military force."

I'd argue that if it ever came to a civil war or if the government imposed martial law due to a collapsing economy, such a scenario would never come to pass anyways because the citizenry is armed.

If you disarm the citizens and many law makers propose this through a slow implementation of gun restrictions and later a blanket ban, what SAFEGUARDS are there against the government ever becoming oppressive as it has become, increasingly so. What could we do to stop it? Don’t act like this is simply impossible because it has happened many, many times historically.

“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety” -Franklin

Mass shootings kill very few people, it’s just such a high profile and emotionally charged thing people freak out and are scared enough to say “screw liberty I want security.

Why aren’t you not on some vendetta against drunk drivers killing 10,000 people a year or pharmacutical drugs killing astanomically more people. Would you give up your right to drink to save these people? I should note, I'm not against making it harder for those with mental problems to obtain firearms.

Of course a balance between safety and liberty is important but giving up our most important right in exchange for such a minuscule sense of security (not even 100 deaths per year by mass shootings on avg.) is ridiculous. How about the 12 deaths a day in the US alone due to “sharp objects”. 12 murders. Every single day in the US. Every 5 days, more people die due to stabbings then the largest mass shooting of all time in the US. How do we stop that?

None of the other rights we have MEAN ANYTHING if there is NO ABILITY to ENFORCE THEM! Just like a law will mean nothing if there is no ability to enforce it by either gun point or repercussion. How do we secure these right; the checks against government by way of votes, which can be manipulated and an armed citizenry.

**This post was edited on Oct 14th 2017 at 6:59:31pm

I agree with most of your points, however I have to push back on the argument that a lot of people make about Chicago and inner city crime. Those areas enacted stricter gun control measures BECAUSE of their out of control murder rate. It's not like everything was fine and dandy until a handgun ban was proposed and then out of nowhere the gangs moved in and started killing people.

You might say that these are test cases that show how ineffective current public policy is at reducing violent crime in poor urban communities, but that is nearly making the argument for even STRICTER legislation.

CaseyI agree with most of your points, however I have to push back on the argument that a lot of people make about Chicago and inner city crime. Those areas enacted stricter gun control measures BECAUSE of their out of control murder rate. It's not like everything was fine and dandy until a handgun ban was proposed and then out of nowhere the gangs moved in and started killing people.

You might say that these are test cases that show how ineffective current public policy is at reducing violent crime in poor urban communities, but that is nearly making the argument for even STRICTER legislation.

So, when they enacted these stricter gun laws, did the homicide rate decrease? The argument wouldn't be that they need stricter gun laws but instead fix the desparity of wealth inequality, poverty, make aware the drug use problem, fix the education system, etc., that is how you'll fix gun crime and the homicide rate which has been decreasing nationwide since 1993. My point is, banning AR-15s, the subset of a rifle will do NOTHING. Even banning rifles will do NOTHING. They account for such a small percentage of gun crime and homicides.

Here are some great quotes I've read:

To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia - George Mason

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined - Patrick Henry

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms - Sam Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined... - George Washington

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. - Noah Webster

The idea that the 2nd amendment was only written so that people could go down to the local militia hall to grab their musket when people invaded is simply incorrect. One could argue that the ideas of defending against the government are outdated, but it is clear which I've stated above that personal ownership of weapons of war is the intended purpose of the amendment and you are going to need to either need supreme court justices comfortable with legislating from the bench or to revamp a constitutional amendment, which no one should take likely.

fuckmekevinLook at Switzerland for example. During Feldschiessen they use SIG 550 assault rifles as well as SIG 510's for home use and sport shooting.

The 550 is the same caliber as thr AR-15 and was based off of thr ak-47u. The 510 is a battle rifle shoots a larger caliber than the AR and is commonly used for hunting throughout Europe for its accuracy and low recoil. Switzerland has very low gun crime and gun homocide rate, yet even children are encouraged to learn how to operate them. The have a very high gun ownership per capita. but some of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Lower than even thr UK.

Now is it because it's so hard to obtain a rifle in Switzerland, well no. All you need is a WES, a background check for criminal activity and your ID. No psych analysis's, no tests, etc. So is it the kinds of guns that are causing the crime that we see in the US, or is it poverty, education, desperation and mental illness due to all the factors above.

In the case of Switzerland, they have great social programs that combat mental illness, a proper healthcare system, and a good education system, unlike the public schooling here in the US.

The country trusts its citizens with guns, because the majority of people trust there government. In the US, this doesn't seem to be the case.

1/ The 2A speaks of a "well regulated militia", and a bunch of randos owing a bunch of guns doesn't count as "well regulated".
2/ That's where Switzerland is different than the US. Yes you can buy guns and own them in Switzerland. But they have mandatory military training for all people the age of 20 (obviously, you can opt out and do a much longer civil service instead). This is how you ensure people know how to use and store the guns and rifles they buy and how you avoid most of the stupid deaths that occur with firearms (self shooting, your toddler shooting you, etc). Plus what you said about mental healthcare, etc. (although their general healthcare system is pretty similar to the american one)

saskskierWould CBS write the same article if the attacker was middle eastern? Guaranteed all news headlines would be 'suspected terrorist attack in Vegas'. They definitely wouldn't be writing articles about how it's too soon to label it as terrorism.

I know this is old, but this just isn't a good post.

The reason previous events involving mass murder carried out by "brown people", as you so eloquently put it, have been labeled terrorist attacks is clear. The reason is because we haven't had to guess or speculate; the individuals responsible have either prerecorded "suicide notes" detailing exactly what their motives are, or have screamed allah akhbar as they've committed their attacks, or within an hour of the attack the suspect has been identified and their fucking Facebook is right there for the whole world to go look at that is chock full of posts about baghdadi, pledging allegiance to isis, or whatever. We know these are acts of terrorism not because we guess, we know because either the perpetrator told us so, the survivors or witnesses recount things the perpetrator said during the attack, and because of readily available evidence found in the immediate aftermath of the attack either by law enforcement or the media.

I'd like to point out that I think the perpetrator of the pulse nightclub shooting imo has a lot more in common with some of these mental health assailants than a legally sane jihadi despite Omar being Muslim and agents discovering some pro ISIS propaganda on his computer, but that's tough to parse out. Particularly with his wife's foreknowledge and recent arrest.

To me the word terrorism is next to meaningless. All of these horrible acts from columbine to aurora are terrorist in nature as they are meant to inspire fear and often the attacker has some twisted ideology that justifies their actions.

But, there are crucial differences between a "terrorist attack" and a "mass shooting". The difference is overt intent. Terrorism is defined as a politically or religiously motivated attack whose purpose is to intimidate a state or population into behaving a particular way. A mass shooting or an "issue of mental health" typically has no motive beyond either some amorphous rage at the world due to some psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorder (eric Harris), good ole fashioned sadism/pleasure/sexual pleasure of the kind that would motivate a serial killer, and then finally honest to god detachment from reality, sincere undeniable crazy ala James Holmes and Charles Whitman.

My overall point and why I think your post sucks and is nothing more than regurgitating a dumb talking point that amounts to nothing other than "white people treat all other people bad", is the fact that "we" aren't labeling these people and their crimes as terrorism or not, the people carrying out these pathetic and gross attacks are labeling them themselves in almost every case. As far as I know this idiot who committed the vegas attack didn't have a stated motive as far as we know at this point, so I'd say it's pretty damn reasonable to presume this involved mental illness, or at the very least a rageful lash out suicide. If tomorrow someone uncovered this guy's manifesto about politics and the need to tear it all down and go back to living primitively or something, I'm pretty sure people would call him a terrorist. Yes, even us awful white people!

Timothy mcveigh, white terrorist that the media called such, Ted kacynski, white terrorist labeled such. James Holmes, Adam Lanza, white shooters, not terrorists. So no, we don't call all white attackers mental health issues and all brown people terrorists because they're brown.

fuckmekevinSo, when they enacted these stricter gun laws, did the homicide rate decrease? The argument wouldn't be that they need stricter gun laws but instead fix the desparity of wealth inequality, poverty, make aware the drug use problem, fix the education system, etc., that is how you'll fix gun crime and the homicide rate which has been decreasing nationwide since 1993. My point is, banning AR-15s, the subset of a rifle will do NOTHING. Even banning rifles will do NOTHING. They account for such a small percentage of gun crime and homicides.

Here are some great quotes I've read:

To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia - George Mason

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined - Patrick Henry

Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms - Sam Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined... - George Washington

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. - Noah Webster

The idea that the 2nd amendment was only written so that people could go down to the local militia hall to grab their musket when people invaded is simply incorrect. One could argue that the ideas of defending against the government are outdated, but it is clear which I've stated above that personal ownership of weapons of war is the intended purpose of the amendment and you are going to need to either need supreme court justices comfortable with legislating from the bench or to revamp a constitutional amendment, which no one should take likely.

I would support a ban on handguns, but people like you start shitting bricks at the thought of it.

Dude you've said it yourself multiple times, the civilian issue AR-15 and similar semi automatic assault weapons are no match military grade weapons. In the event that half a million people with semi automatic assault weapons successfully storm dc and end some tyrannical government what stops the military from staging a coup and taking power for themselves, even in the hypothetical world where they couldn't wipe out your civilian army with a few drones and a few minutes, they still have better weapons and better armor? How does your revolt play out? American society has become so factionalized that your mob of gunslingers would probably decimate themselves before they ever made to the capital? Civil resistance is far more successful (https://www.jsomonline.org/BookReviews/20144139Farr.pdf).

I agree that much of the gun violence can be attributed to systemic poverty, our broken mental healthcare system, and a failing public education system (lots of systems haha) but our country isn't going to turn into switzerland overnight, the comparison is fucking ridiculous. Its a lot easier to take semi automatic assault weapons out of civilian hands than it is to solve all the issues you've listed that are also associated with gun violence. In the event that we built a government that actually nurtured its citizenry instead of this dystopian plutocratic shithole we currently find ourselves in, I would have no problem with citizens owning semi automatic assualt weapons.

casualI know this is old, but this just isn't a good post.

The reason previous events involving mass murder carried out by "brown people", as you so eloquently put it, have been labeled terrorist attacks is clear. The reason is because we haven't had to guess or speculate; the individuals responsible have either prerecorded "suicide notes" detailing exactly what their motives are, or have screamed allah akhbar as they've committed their attacks, or within an hour of the attack the suspect has been identified and their fucking Facebook is right there for the whole world to go look at that is chock full of posts about baghdadi, pledging allegiance to isis, or whatever. We know these are acts of terrorism not because we guess, we know because either the perpetrator told us so, the survivors or witnesses recount things the perpetrator said during the attack, and because of readily available evidence found in the immediate aftermath of the attack either by law enforcement or the media.

I'd like to point out that I think the perpetrator of the pulse nightclub shooting imo has a lot more in common with some of these mental health assailants than a legally sane jihadi despite Omar being Muslim and agents discovering some pro ISIS propaganda on his computer, but that's tough to parse out. Particularly with his wife's foreknowledge and recent arrest.

To me the word terrorism is next to meaningless. All of these horrible acts from columbine to aurora are terrorist in nature as they are meant to inspire fear and often the attacker has some twisted ideology that justifies their actions.

But, there are crucial differences between a "terrorist attack" and a "mass shooting". The difference is overt intent. Terrorism is defined as a politically or religiously motivated attack whose purpose is to intimidate a state or population into behaving a particular way. A mass shooting or an "issue of mental health" typically has no motive beyond either some amorphous rage at the world due to some psychopathic and narcissistic personality disorder (eric Harris), good ole fashioned sadism/pleasure/sexual pleasure of the kind that would motivate a serial killer, and then finally honest to god detachment from reality, sincere undeniable crazy ala James Holmes and Charles Whitman.

My overall point and why I think your post sucks and is nothing more than regurgitating a dumb talking point that amounts to nothing other than "white people treat all other people bad", is the fact that "we" aren't labeling these people and their crimes as terrorism or not, the people carrying out these pathetic and gross attacks are labeling them themselves in almost every case. As far as I know this idiot who committed the vegas attack didn't have a stated motive as far as we know at this point, so I'd say it's pretty damn reasonable to presume this involved mental illness, or at the very least a rageful lash out suicide. If tomorrow someone uncovered this guy's manifesto about politics and the need to tear it all down and go back to living primitively or something, I'm pretty sure people would call him a terrorist. Yes, even us awful white people!

Timothy mcveigh, white terrorist that the media called such, Ted kacynski, white terrorist labeled such. James Holmes, Adam Lanza, white shooters, not terrorists. So no, we don't call all white attackers mental health issues and all brown people terrorists because they're brown.

This is a good point, although I think that beyond semantics it's the lack of reaction from the public and elected leadership that demonstrated the biggest contrast between white vs. brown. We spent 3 trillion dollars, invaded 2 countries, abandoned the 4th amendment, etc. After 9/11. People were and are scared shitless around the concept of Muslim terrorism, and seem to really not be over being shot by murderous white people. Not saying that's wrong, statistically both are pretty rare, it's just logically inconsistent, and appears to be along the lines of race.

Damn. There be some essays up in here.

TheDoughAbidesI would support a ban on handguns, but people like you start shitting bricks at the thought of it.

Dude you've said it yourself multiple times, the civilian issue AR-15 and similar semi automatic assault weapons are no match military grade weapons. In the event that half a million people with semi automatic assault weapons successfully storm dc and end some tyrannical government what stops the military from staging a coup and taking power for themselves, even in the hypothetical world where they couldn't wipe out your civilian army with a few drones and a few minutes, they still have better weapons and better armor? How does your revolt play out? American society has become so factionalized that your mob of gunslingers would probably decimate themselves before they ever made to the capital? Civil resistance is far more successful (https://www.jsomonline.org/BookReviews/20144139Farr.pdf).

I agree that much of the gun violence can be attributed to systemic poverty, our broken mental healthcare system, and a failing public education system (lots of systems haha) but our country isn't going to turn into switzerland overnight, the comparison is fucking ridiculous. Its a lot easier to take semi automatic assault weapons out of civilian hands than it is to solve all the issues you've listed that are also associated with gun violence. In the event that we built a government that actually nurtured its citizenry instead of this dystopian plutocratic shithole we currently find ourselves in, I would have no problem with citizens owning semi automatic assualt weapons.

So, because you think we live in a dystopia plutocratic shithole of a country, I'd argue we are more oligarchic in nature with a corporatocracy front, you'd ban assault rifles as you've stated previously and take AR-15's which annually account for less deaths than stabbings after 5 days, which are used mostly for defense purposes and statisics illustrate that this subset of a rifle is used far more for defense purposes then it is ever for causing harm, such as killing, either yourself or others. Banning this alone and nothing else does nothing, so I appreciate you admitting that you'd ban ALL semi-automatic guns including almost all handguns but I don't agree at all. Keep in mind a lot of people think guns that look like military rifles should be banned but most are not high powered and it is mainly cosmetic in nature.

I'm unsure why you'd give your guns away to a corrupt government, that has shown time and time again to neglect the well being of its citizens. It's obvious that our government seems more scared about the AR then any other weapon, yet it is safe and accounts for almost no gun related homicides and violence. Why do you think they want to ban it? It obviously isn't to combat gun violence nor mass shootings, nor criminals as the AR is almost never used by a criminal. Banning guns, will never happen in the US, the 2nd amendment is so engrained in our culture that if our government were to impose a blanket ban lots of people could die. Also, to note many countries that banned guns saw a decrease in gun homicides but the murder rate stayed the same. So, is a murder from a gun, different from a murder with a different weapon if the murder rate stays the same? Even then, we should start to organize these stats to better understand why gun violence, although decreasing nationwide is as you've said, frequent.

In many cases, blanket bans increase violent crime for an acute amount of time but then we are geographically different, with different cultures and idealogies. We have for the past twenty years been trending down in violent crime due to guns and gun homicides significantly.

If we get rid of INNER CITIES, THE US wouldn't be on the map for gun violence and gun related homicides. Systemic poverty, education and wealth inequality is the problem. The most deadliest form of violence is poverty.

If our government focused on those problems and set up programs to train and better educate people on gun safety we'd be in a much different place.

You could too catagorize gun violence by race. And look at these problems and why they're happening.

You stated, "Its a lot easier to take semi automatic assault weapons out of civilian hands than it is to solve all the issues you've listed that are also associated with gun violence."

No, it's not. It would cost billions of tax payer money, people would resist, it isn't a guarentee in combating murder rate and violent crime, which is on a downward trend, and with the 2nd amendment engrained in our culture for hunting, sport shooting and to combat tyranny if ever need be, which now thinking about it in the case of unconstitutional martial law a rifle would be perfect to defend yourself from a rouge government.

What says, that as you've stated "our corrupt shithole of a government" wouldn't oppress its people even more so after a blanket ban or the banning of sem-automatic weapons?

Moreover, I would find it far better if instead of banning semi-auto's the government fixes our healthcare system, fixes public education, and stops the charter school nonsense, gets rid of no child left behind bullcrap, fixes the systemic wealth inequality in inner cities through better education and social programs but then again, the government doesn't really care about these things and if lawmakers do, they are far concerned about a particular rifle which accounts for so few deaths, which again, is the most common home defense weapon in the US. I'll tell you why, they are scared. They no when shit hits the fan, the public will be armed to defend themselves from an oppressive government. It could happen overnight if the economy were to collapse. Is the first amendment obsolete because the founders couldn't envision newschoolers or reddit? Banning guns will not happen.

Giving our guns to a government that has become increasingly more corrupt is the wrong way to go.

**This post was edited on Oct 15th 2017 at 7:30:53pm

CaseyThis is a good point, although I think that beyond semantics it's the lack of reaction from the public and elected leadership that demonstrated the biggest contrast between white vs. brown. We spent 3 trillion dollars, invaded 2 countries, abandoned the 4th amendment, etc. After 9/11. People were and are scared shitless around the concept of Muslim terrorism, and seem to really not be over being shot by murderous white people. Not saying that's wrong, statistically both are pretty rare, it's just logically inconsistent, and appears to be along the lines of race.

I hear ya there. Particularly when we invaded Afghanistan as opposed to say Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I don't support the war in Afghanistan at all, and in retrospect, I don't support the war in Iraq either. But I can see the logic in trying to set a precedent and possibly demonstrate our willingness and military might in hopes that other potential actors would be dissuaded. Obviously people acting alone wouldn't really be affected, but in these instances where there are clear indicators of state sponsorship, I can see where the US would take that approach.

I just don't know if I totally agree with you that we don't cover instances of mass violence when the perpetrator is white. In my experience, the media leaps at every opportunity to unendingly cover all acts of violence because it generates clicks and attracts eyeballs, regardless of ethnicity.

I'd ask you though why there is such an oversaturation of coverage of instances, rare as they actually are overall, of police killing black and brown people but little to no national coverage about the epidemic of drug related crime and violence that consumes impoverished, inner city, predominantly black and brown neighborhoods.

Is it not covered because white people and the mainstream media simply don't care about black people and are disinterested, or is that many are fearful of reporting how bleak the situation is for fear of being labeled racist? In fact, me merely mentioning drug violence concentrated in black and brown neighborhoods will serve to convince a fraction of people that read this post that I'm racist.

I think we have a real problem in this country when we simply can't talk reality and facts for fear of being pegged as bigots or whatever.

I think there's a problem in this country with how readily available weapons are. But I also think people should be allowed to own and possess guns. Clearly there's an issue somewhere along the line.

I would though like to point out that suicides by gun outnumber homicides by gun by about 100% year to year. That's a fact that many people don't know.

fuckmekevinThere were multiple shooters and the offical story is starting not to make any sense with the recent gag orders. Follow the money and you'll see what the shooting really entailed. There was a single video of which funny enough the witness is deceased that depicted multiple shooters and these were clearly not gun reports. The video was censored and deleted off of facebook, youtube and almost every other site. I don't trust the FBI for a minute with their entrapment crap.

To be clear.....are you suggesting this was a black ops carried out by the government in order to garner support for legislation banning guns?

What exactly are you saying?

And lastly, are you fucking for real? Show some sources or something. Did you also believe sandyhook was the same situation? Why is it that people of a certain mindset always presume that these incidents are conspiracies?

casualTo be clear.....are you suggesting this was a black ops carried out by the government in order to garner support for legislation banning guns?

What exactly are you saying?

And lastly, are you fucking for real? Show some sources or something. Did you also believe sandyhook was the same situation? Why is it that people of a certain mindset always presume that these incidents are conspiracies?

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm questioning the official narrative, that's all. What mindset do I have that is comparable to those that assume conspiracy. The offical narrative could have very well been a conspiracy and reading its definition, it might have been considered a conspiracy. I only asked others to follow the money and research the shooter and the hotel. Look up the gag orders that went down thereafter.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm only suggesting that there could have been multiple shooters. Did factions within the government have a hand, probably not but to discount things like this and to get hostile over someone questioning the offiical narrative is not helping.

There has been lots of new videos that have come out only to be censored everywhere, which have shown multiple shooters, clearly not gun reports. I'm sorry to tell you but I'm skeptical about my government and the bureacuracies of law enforcement and thr FBI who have had their fingers in many recent domestic terrorist attacks by using informent entrapment tactics. There's a great TEDx talk about it.

As for the sources, most of them were censored and wiped quickly with archives. Basically, I don't think it is a false flag but I'm always open to research that side. I would have saved thr sources locally but I've been pretty sick with infections, so I didn't have time.

**This post was edited on Oct 15th 2017 at 10:39:35pm

Coming in here:
Gun control is useless at this point in the US. There are too many high powered assault rifles in the US so curving gun sales and documenting sales wont do a difference at this point.
This is what is going to happen; legislature will try to implement laws, the NRA will lobby the politicians and show up to meetings, people will buy more guns in fear of legislation, the bill will fail and manufactures of weapons, shareholders and investors will make more money and life goes on.

wait...that already happened? Shit, Im too slow to post.

im out

casualTo be clear.....are you suggesting this was a black ops carried out by the government in order to garner support for legislation banning guns?

It's funny because the current government is in the NRA's pocket.

freestyler540Coming in here:
Gun control is useless at this point in the US. There are too many high powered assault rifles in the US so curving gun sales and documenting sales wont do a difference at this point.
This is what is going to happen; legislature will try to implement laws, the NRA will lobby the politicians and show up to meetings, people will buy more guns in fear of legislation, the bill will fail and manufactures of weapons, shareholders and investors will make more money and life goes on.

wait...that already happened? Shit, Im too slow to post.

im out

Ok I'm really annoyed at people saying "high-powered." Is a .223/5.56 round high powered??? If that's true then a .300 Winchester magnum is a freaking anti aircraft gun. A .223 is not high powered

Sorry

Nothing will change.... Betcha the next one will be even bigger, in fact we should start a pool, I'm gonna say in 12-16 months
80-100 people killed with an assault rifle (shocked this guys kill count was so low). Nothing will change and the one after that will be even bigger.

RusticlesNothing will change.... Betcha the next one will be even bigger, in fact we should start a pool, I'm gonna say in 12-16 months
80-100 people killed with an assault rifle (shocked this guys kill count was so low). Nothing will change and the one after that will be even bigger.

This guy had 100% ideal conditions. How could someone else do more? without being stopped...

milk_manThis guy had 100% ideal conditions. How could someone else do more? without being stopped...

Exactly, This guy was kind of a fuck up, "epic fail" if you will. Surprised he only killed 58 (RIP). I think his problem was that he may have been too far away, that's why so many were injured compared to killed.
Regardless, the next lunatic that amasses a fucking armory for a good ol people shooting good time will have learnt from this and he will be able to ice more than 58 people. So I'm sticking to my original number of people killed, I might even be a bit conservative with this number.

24 more dead in Texas today.

CBS News reports:
Suspect is fmr. US Air Force E1
(2010-2014)
He received a dishonorable discharge
He was court martialed in May 2014

.MASSHOLE.24 more dead in Texas today.

CBS News reports:
Suspect is fmr. US Air Force E1
(2010-2014)
He received a dishonorable discharge
He was court martialed in May 2014

Thank you, but we do have Tv's and internet for the news. What's the point of reviving this thread? There really isn't a part of the internet this publicity is exempt from.... I feel a huge part of this mass shooting stuff is the flood of media afterwards. That has to contribute to an extent. Think about it. Maybe people are crazier today, but doubt it. Guns more accessible? Meh. Semi autos? Been around for ages. However the constant overwhelming flood of media about shootings is new as of the past 10 years or so. If you don't think that some crazy fuck out there is seeing the news and not learning from it, not being inspired to be worse, you are mistaken. They need to stop with all this attention we are giving these shooters.

fuckmekevinI'm not suggesting anything, I'm questioning the official narrative, that's all. What mindset do I have that is comparable to those that assume conspiracy. The offical narrative could have very well been a conspiracy and reading its definition, it might have been considered a conspiracy. I only asked others to follow the money and research the shooter and the hotel. Look up the gag orders that went down thereafter.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm only suggesting that there could have been multiple shooters. Did factions within the government have a hand, probably not but to discount things like this and to get hostile over someone questioning the offiical narrative is not helping.

There has been lots of new videos that have come out only to be censored everywhere, which have shown multiple shooters, clearly not gun reports. I'm sorry to tell you but I'm skeptical about my government and the bureacuracies of law enforcement and thr FBI who have had their fingers in many recent domestic terrorist attacks by using informent entrapment tactics. There's a great TEDx talk about it.

As for the sources, most of them were censored and wiped quickly with archives. Basically, I don't think it is a false flag but I'm always open to research that side. I would have saved thr sources locally but I've been pretty sick with infections, so I didn't have time.

**This post was edited on Oct 15th 2017 at 10:39:35pm

Dude this is a chicken shit cop out. You alluded to a lot of shit and have zero evidence to back it up. So if there were multiple shooters...why would the government not admit as such? What does the US govt stand to gain by suppressing the fact that there were multiple shooters? The only logical conclusion from that assumption or belief is that the government would cover up the fact that multiple shooters were involved because those shooters were under their control or direction. So, you asserting that the "official" story is bullshit is implying some sort of government collusion in the shooting.

And if you're not bold enough to claim that, then your post is worthless and just muddies and obscures the event and devolves the conversation around what happened into half baked conspiracy theories with little merit or worth.

The fact is that it's in vogue to presume that every act of violence is not what it appears to be at face value, but rather a premeditated and carefully orchestrated conspiracy concocted to pursue some amorphous goal on behalf of one globalist faction or another. The net effect of this ever growing chorus of baseless claims is erosion of our society.

I'm not saying that everything we're told is always the 100% truth, but this constant knee jerk reaction that everything tragic is perpetrated by the government is fucking nonsense.

How can a citizen with a 'normal' gun stop someone with an assault weapon carrying out a massacre?

You should level out the playing field. Either every citizen has an assault rifle with them at all times or they have a 'normal' gun with them at all times.

To lesson the amount of people that could be killed by one person, by limiting the number of bullets that one gun could have, I would go with option 2. Everyone should have access to a 6 - 9 cylinder handgun. You can protect yourself if someone breaks in to your house, tries to steal your car, or shoots up a convenience store, church etc

If you want to try an assault weapon, go to a gun range.

Ban all assault weapons and bump stocks. Gun Amnesty for those that have them. 5 year prison term if you are caught with one.


Mental health is the cause, guns are overwhelmingly their weapon of choice. You can't stop either without treating them both.

**This post was edited on Nov 6th 2017 at 5:55:05am

D87How can a citizen with a 'normal' gun stop someone with an assault weapon carrying out a massacre?

You should level out the playing field. Either every citizen has an assault rifle with them at all times or they have a 'normal' gun with them at all times.

To lesson the amount of people that could be killed by one person, by limiting the number of bullets that one gun could have, I would go with option 2. Everyone should have access to a 6 - 9 cylinder handgun. You can protect yourself if someone breaks in to your house, tries to steal your car, or shoots up a convenience store, church etc

If you want to try an assault weapon, go to a gun range.

Ban all assault weapons and bump stocks. Gun Amnesty for those that have them. 5 year prison term if you are caught with one.


Mental health is the cause, guns are overwhelmingly their weapon of choice. You can't stop either without treating them both.

**This post was edited on Nov 6th 2017 at 5:55:05am

you're a dumb cunt aren't ya?

coolflash8you're a dumb cunt aren't ya?

Being dumb means lack of intelligence or good judgement. Having gun massacres occur in your country and doing absolutely nothing about it is except give out more guns is the definition of dumb!!

Most mass killers have shot themselves before law enforcement could and in most instances they have killed a large amount of people before police or a citizen with a gun has killed them.

And, In a case of mass murder how are the police on scene going to know who the killer is if everyone takes out their guns? I.e Las Vegas. The band who were on stage had guns but were afraid to use them in case they were shot by the police who were responding.

The only logical way then of curtailing mass murderers who use guns is by limiting the types of guns they can use...

Less firepower/bullets equals less deaths by guns. It's a directly proportional factor.

D87How can a citizen with a 'normal' gun stop someone with an assault weapon carrying out a massacre?

You should level out the playing field. Either every citizen has an assault rifle with them at all times or they have a 'normal' gun with them at all times.

To lesson the amount of people that could be killed by one person, by limiting the number of bullets that one gun could have, I would go with option 2. Everyone should have access to a 6 - 9 cylinder handgun. You can protect yourself if someone breaks in to your house, tries to steal your car, or shoots up a convenience store, church etc

If you want to try an assault weapon, go to a gun range.

Ban all assault weapons and bump stocks. Gun Amnesty for those that have them. 5 year prison term if you are caught with one.


Mental health is the cause, guns are overwhelmingly their weapon of choice. You can't stop either without treating them both.

**This post was edited on Nov 6th 2017 at 5:55:05am

Very curious to know what you think the difference between a "normal gun" and an "assault rifle" is. Do you know that many hunting rifles are semi-automatic and fire a round that is much more deadly than what most modern sporting rifles shoot?