Mass shooting in Main

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,467
2,749
118
As a certified mentally ill person am obligated to mention the only person who'd be in danger if I had access to guns would be myself. It's just so much easier when all you gotta do is press a button.
It really messes with the masculinity of the gun owner when you call the trigger a button. Gun boners drooping across the nation.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,957
5,481
118
Is it that common though? I mean sure it seems a lot more common these days because of the internet and the ease of access of seeing people post dumb shit to tik tok and whatever.

But if you look at the numbers in that document you have 845 mass shootings in 42 years. Though to be fair, they are very generous with what they call a "mass shooting" very few of these 845 events are anything like Vegas, Columbine, Pulse, etc. But we'll go with that number because that's the number they are using. This means you have 20-21 shootings per year. And then you have to question how many people are on a diagnoisable mental illness spectrum (the early years in the 70's-90's you probably couldn't even quantify because they didn't have classifications for maybe certain things.

Additionally a funny little statistic on this document says that over one third of mass shooters were banned from having firearms in the first place. Which further sort of highlights the idea that more gun control isn't really relevant because these people are getting guns away. A teenager for example can't buy a gun they have to steal it from someone. And if you buy a gun under all legal channels and you're fully acceptable to have a gun, but then someone steals it...what's the answer there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,957
5,481
118
It really messes with the masculinity of the gun owner when you call the trigger a button. Gun boners drooping across the nation.
Yeah man, it's a gun not a Call of Duty lobby.

What's that? It's called a trigger on the controller too? Well fuck me sideways.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,545
3,490
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I mean that could also be good. Best way to stop a crazy person with a gun, is a sane person with a gun sort of thing. You educate more and more people and it opens more people to be able to protect themselves could save lives potentially. I dunno.
The best way to stop a crazy person with a gun, is to stop them from getting that gun in the first place.

My fear with higher restrictions, and this is what I was eluding to originally, is that if someone wants to get ahold of a gun....they'll do it especially if they are determined enough to do something like this off. The only difference is that it'll be an illegal or stolen weapon. So higher regulations aren't really an answer. I do think that legal purchasing could be a bit more strict, for example if you've had a history of mental issues, or actually if your credit score sucks then you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Mental issues obviously, and then being broke is a red flag because if you can't be responsible with money, how can you be responsible with a firearm? Maybe not the credit thing. But still the point stands that we can be stricter with the rules, but again at the same time people will break the rules anyway so who knows.
That is a bad mentality to have since its just giving up. No problems are too big to solve, but you do need to make sure people at least want to solve them. Having republicans be more in favor of at least some restrictions would be a massive boon since right now their party line is "guns for all."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,957
5,481
118
The best way to stop a crazy person with a gun, is to stop them from getting that gun in the first place.
Except you can't. In that article that Bednisis posted, it showed that over 1/3rd of mass shootings were made by people who should not have and were not allowed to have guns in the first place.

So this isn't a solution. Making guns harder to get really isn't the answer anymore, it might have been in the 70's and 80's but it's too late for that now.

Another thing about this is that 44% of U.S. citizens are registered gun owners. that's about 170 Million people. and then you consider that only 824 of them have caused a mass shooting in over 42 years https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx That's a pretty fucking low number of problem people isn't it. How can the guns be the problem with numbers like that? And how would you even change regulations to make better numbers.

I just don't really see it. Mass Shootings are horrible things, but they are also ALWAYS World wide news which turns them into much bigger events that seem more common than they really are.
 

Catfood220

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 21, 2010
2,099
358
88
I have a better idea than gun control that is never going to happen because people with micro penises will never allow to happen. Give every citizen in the USA a free bullet proof vest and maybe a helmet too. Sure there will still be a few deaths, but at least the innocent people stand a chance of surviving when some mentally ill cretin with access to an assault rifle decides that everyone in their town are alien replacements.

You know, you'd of thought that when the government put chips in peoples heads with Covid-19 vaccines, they'd of added an option to explode them too and end these sort of things quickly.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2017
10,957
5,481
118
No, not really. Not in comparison with every other country.
Maybe the problem is a lack of criminal enforcement. Other countries will fuck you up if you do crime. America enforces stupid crime like pot smoking instead of things like stealing. Did you know you can steal up to 999 dollars from a store and nobody is allowed to do shit about it, in California at least.

Maybe we should go back to chopping off peoples hands for stealing shit.

Other countries also have better health care and better workplace laws and better social support systems. Other countries like Italy are much more focused on family units which reduce crime, (see my point about the nuclear family in the U S.)

Like all told the USA fucking sucks.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,740
3,614
118
Complete ahistoric bollocks with regards to the Nazis. The 1938 German law categorically did not "take guns away". There was previously a blanket ban on personal gun ownership under the Weimar Republic until 1928 (to comply with Versailles disarmament provisions). The 1938 law introduced by the Nazis actually deregulated gun ownership, comparative to the system in place before.

Notably, the Nazis wanted the populace to have guns, to go to gun clubs, to use replicas of Kar98ks chambered in .22lr, so they could fight for their country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,132
1,888
118
Country
USA
And the tens of thousands of people who die in the USA to gun violence every year? Also statistics, and more importantly not you.
In that number how many are:
1) Suicide
2) Homicides that would happen with other tools?
And again: Thousands vs. millions.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,473
816
118
Country
United States
As a certified mentally ill person am obligated to mention the only person who'd be in danger if I had access to guns would be myself. It's just so much easier when all you gotta do is press a button.
Same, and I know everyone will fight me on this, but it's a bad world. Not everyone should have guns myself included, but if the police and military were the only ones or even just the military there is no deterrence for the common man. You can't fight people with guns without some sort of weapon, and riots don't work.

The people who are drawn to government are drawn to power, just like the greedy man is drawn to money, the womanizer of the other sex. These cannot be the only people with power over people who have guns.

Look at Israel v Palestine for example. Without rockets, assault rifles, and even rocks the IDF would have done the same thing they did in the West Bank to Palestinians in Gaza. Steal more land, and eventually use legal and eviction-based tactics to box in and or ethnically cleanse the population. Similarly, if Israel didn't use guns, and did the MLK route, the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians would have masscre them with less rage than Hamas, but there would also be ethnic cleansing in 1967.

I don't trust the US military, I don't trust the CPC/Chinese Military, I don't trust the Russians, and I don't trust anyone else to be ethical. My only trust is myself, my family, and hopefully, in the future the people who don't seek to oppress at the helms of the powerful.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,740
3,614
118
Same, and I know everyone will fight me on this, but it's a bad world. Not everyone should have guns myself included, but if the police and military were the only ones or even just the military there is no deterrence for the common man. You can't fight people with guns without some sort of weapon, and riots don't work.
When the US police kill someone, the excuse is always they thought they were armed/dangerous. You're not going to be able to fight the police. The US population is unusually able to access guns for Western nations, and unusually often murdered by police for Western nations.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,473
816
118
Country
United States
When the US police kill someone, the excuse is always they thought they were armed/dangerous. You're not going to be able to fight the police. The US population is unusually able to access guns for Western nations, and unusually often murdered by police for Western nations.
In case shit hits the fan. Look at the US it invaded Iraq and killed indirectly or directly 100k to one million people. If someone killed 22 people in Maine you have the world hating them and wanting to hunt them down as they should. But if you kill one million or 100k via executive action you get it get away with it. Because powerful people are not to be trusted.

It’s not different in Russia or China. The rich are even talking about putting collars on security guards and building climate change bunkers when they create this crisis.

Edit: Apologies for grammar I am using a phone.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,740
3,614
118
In case shit hits the fan. Look at the US it invaded Iraq and killed indirectly or directly 100k to one million people. If someone killed 22 people in Maine you have the world hating them and wanting to hunt them down as they should. But if you kill one million or 100k via executive action you get it get away with it. Because powerful people are not to be trusted.
It is true that powerful people are not to be trusted, I just dispute that civilian having guns makes powerful people more trustworthy.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,473
816
118
Country
United States
It is true that powerful people are not to be trusted, I just dispute that civilian having guns makes powerful people more trustworthy.
They don't fear anything, but death why do you think they keep funding radical life extension?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,740
3,614
118
They don't fear anything, but death why do you think they keep funding radical life extension?
The political elite's fear of death by random citizen by AR is not to enough to stop the US from having more police shootings, more incarceration, less workers rights etc than Western countries with less guns.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,478
736
118
Country
Sweden
Additionally a funny little statistic on this document says that over one third of mass shooters were banned from having firearms in the first place. Which further sort of highlights the idea that more gun control isn't really relevant because these people are getting guns away.
As they explicitly write: "many of [them] escaped detection thanks to 'exit points' in the screening process". They write more of these exit points further down in a way I honestly did not comprehend, so I googled for a bit and found this interview with one of the cited authors. She claimed that "Many of those exit points can be closed through legislation and better implementation of the law.".
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,740
3,614
118
As they explicitly write: "many of [them] escaped detection thanks to 'exit points' in the screening process". They write more of these exit points further down in a way I honestly did not comprehend, so I googled for a bit and found this interview with one of the cited authors. She claimed that "Many of those exit points can be closed through legislation and better implementation of the law.".
And if you "only" stopped about two thirds of mass shooters from getting guns, that's not a bad start either.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,478
736
118
Country
Sweden
And if you "only" stopped about two thirds of mass shooters from getting guns, that's not a bad start either.
They're talking about the third that were not permitted to have guns.