[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

[Saelune]

Closing down 8chan is like cutting down the tree with the wasp nest on it and thinking there's not gonna be any more wasps. It was prolly a sucky tree, sure, but that's not gonna address your wasp problem.


The attack on videogames is a usual deflection of the NRA (and the politicians they bribe), so that doesn't surprise me. It's the same politicians who are suck in the 90s in their politics that use those attacks, they're almost cliche at this point. They're not a serious threat.

Not a serious threat? They run the government right now. Donald Trump is president. Not a threat?!

Know who else is 'not a threat'? The Ohio shooter. Look how that turned out.

You completely missed what I was referring to there. The threat was that of the government taking action to curtail videogame violence.

I used to think we would never get back to literal concentration camps, but here we are. If the Republican Government could start using video games as an excuse to further their fascist agenda, they would. Trump and this woman are already picking at the notion.

 

[Baffle]

many of which are held by people who would rather die than give up firearms.

Well, people who would rather other people died in mass shootings at least.

But you're right, Americans (broadly) do have a wholly unnatural, fanatical even, obsession with guns. To the extent that you'd rather blame pretty much anything else for gun deaths - video games even! Oh dear.

 

[Leg End]

Well, people who would rather other people died in mass shootings at least.

...The hell is that supposed to mean?

But you're right, Americans (broadly) do have a wholly unnatural, fanatical even, obsession with guns. To the extent that you'd rather blame pretty much anything else for gun deaths - video games even! Oh dear.

A lot of us find it odd that everyone blames everything on an inanimate object, instead of the user of that object. We simply believe one thing less to be responsible, and place the responsibility firmly in the hands of the Murderer. Just as you find it odd we do not blame inanimate objects, we find it odd that you do. Is it really that hard to understand someone coming to that conclusion?

 

[McElroy]

A lot of us find it odd that everyone blames everything on an inanimate object, instead of the user of that object. We simply believe one thing less to be responsible, and place the responsibility firmly in the hands of the Murderer. Just as you find it odd we do not blame inanimate objects, we find it odd that you do. Is it really that hard to understand someone coming to that conclusion?

Baffle doesn't point the finger at guns here but rather at:

a wholly unnatural, fanatical even, obsession with guns

 

[Leg End]

Baffle doesn't point the finger at guns here but rather at:

a wholly unnatural, fanatical even, obsession with guns

When your country is built on treason to the crown and holding on to your guns for dear life, it makes a lot more sense. It's specifically a right in our constitution, and people still see firearms as the protectors of our liberty, our 'Freedom Teeth' if you would. We have more of them than we do people and it's as American as Apple Pie.

 

[Silvanus]

Well, people who would rather other people died in mass shootings at least.

...The hell is that supposed to mean?

Well, if someone supports a policy, they may not necessarily support every side-effect of that policy, but they must consider the side-effects to be an acceptable price to pay.

An impact of the wide and unregulated availability of high-powered weaponry is mass shootings. If someone supports the wide availability of high-powered weaponry, they must be considering that an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms.

It's not their own life they're likely to sacrifice, so it's not terribly appropriate to say they're "willing to die" for the right. Its others that are much more likely to die. That's the price being paid.

 

[Trunkage]

A lot of us find it odd that everyone blames everything on an inanimate object, instead of the user of that object. We simply believe one thing less to be responsible, and place the responsibility firmly in the hands of the Murderer. Just as you find it odd we do not blame inanimate objects, we find it odd that you do. Is it really that hard to understand someone coming to that conclusion?

A lot of us find it odd that you think we are actually blaming an inanimate objects, instead of the user of the object.

Gun restriction are restriction ON PEOPLE, and their access to said animate object. Please, for the love of all that might be holy, let that sink in. Because this utter nonsense that we blame inanimate object is just that. Nonsense. We realise that guns are tools but, as with all tools, in the wrong hands, they are deadly. It's just that gun are SUPER EFFECTIVE at being deadly. And have been shown to kill way more people they, say, knives. AND AGAIN, gun restriction are place on PEOPLE.

Remember how the US has changed gun laws many times over the last few centruies, inlcuding banning whole swathes of weapons types, like explosives. Becuase they USED to be protect by the second amendment til about 100 years ago when, after a little incident, they were deemed to dangerous to be allowed into the average citizens hands. You needed special training to get access. And, you know what, bombings dont happen every day in the US. (Yes, I'm aware they do happen. But not every day, which seems to be the rate mass shootings are happening.) It's almost as if gun restriction might just work....

 

[Agema]

When your country is built on treason to the crown...

Yeah, but what about all the other countries that secured their independence at gunpoint and don't feel the need to fetishise guns? The US love of guns is probably a lot more about its early disinclination to maintain a strong, standing, professional army, thereby putting defence in the hands of a citizen militia.

A lot of us find it odd that everyone blames everything on an inanimate object, instead of the user of that object. We simply believe one thing less to be responsible, and place the responsibility firmly in the hands of the Murderer. Just as you find it odd we do not blame inanimate objects, we find it odd that you do. Is it really that hard to understand someone coming to that conclusion?

"Blame" is perhaps a loaded term that doesn't really explain the rationale. It's better to say that if your state has a problem with murderers, a reasonable tactic might be to reduce access to the best and easiest tools of murderers.

After all, this logic is already applied. Private nuclear bomb ownership would be pretty handy to deter foreign invasion and tyrannical government, too. So why don't American citizens have free access to nuclear bombs?

 

[Leg End]

Well, if someone supports a policy, they may not necessarily support every side-effect of that policy, but they must consider the side-effects to be an acceptable price to pay.

Generally why I don't vote Democrat.

An impact of the wide and unregulated availability

A non-truth.

of high-powered weaponry

A vague term which varies between person and very few people who regularly handle firearms would agree describes 5.56.

is mass shootings. If someone supports the wide availability of high-powered weaponry, they must be considering that an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms.

Or they consider it a defense against mass shooters, who are already few in number (and thank fuck for that). On the other hand, the same person might consider disarmament of the public and the resulting defenselessness against killers to be an acceptable price in the mind of the person wanting the disarmament.

It's not their own life they're likely to sacrifice, so it's not terribly appropriate to say they're "willing to die" for the right.

Except for the whole thing where that isn't the case and we still have an entire culture built around the idea that armed citizens tell tyrannical governments to pound sand, and are in fact willing to fight and die for their rights at a moment's notice, including the 2A.

Its others that are much more likely to die. That's the price being paid.

I've basically been told in this thread that a mother and their daughter should have to take on a large man who somehow evades justice and abuses the legal system, with nothing more than spicy juice and a device that is notorious among police for how low the reliability can be when it counts, because... fuck it, it's an acceptable price. To me, it's sounding like everyone pushing for gun restriction doesn't give a flying fuck about the people that would be without arms, just because people are afraid of "high powered weaponry" they no absolutely nothing about, but think they should decide on it's ownership for other people.

Put yourself in my shoes. How does that sound?

 

[Baffle]

Well, people who would rather other people died in mass shootings at least.

...The hell is that supposed to mean?It means that the people who oppose the removal of guns do not themselves expect to be the victims of mass shootings; they accept other people being the victims of those shootings in order that they themselves are allowed to own a gun. That is, on balance, they value their right to own a gun much more than they value the lives of those killed by gun violence. That's (at least part of) why thoughts and prayers are contemptible.

 

[Erttheking]

Except for the whole thing where that isn't the case and we still have an entire culture built around the idea that armed citizens tell tyrannical governments to pound sand, and are in fact willing to fight and die for their rights at a moment's notice, including the 2A.

Yeah, don't ask me to treat this concept with anything resembling seriousness, because of the idea of armed citizens being able to do anything against the US government except annoying it is nothing short of a fever dream. It isn't the July Revolution, you can't stack up a barricade and show them what for anymore. People who think they can take the government are suicidally overconfident, to say the least.

The reply I always hear to this is "well the military wouldn't fire on civilians and would probably defect with large amounts of hardware." But if that happens it's not really armed civilians the tyrannical government needs to worry about, it's renegade soldiers.

Oh, and I'm speaking as someone who's considering buying a gun. So spare me your "everyone pushing for gun restriction doesn't give a flying fuck about the people that would be without arms" strawman. Particularly when no one in this thread has advocated for a total gun ban.

 

[Baffle]

Or they consider it a defense against mass shooters,

How's that working out generally?

 

[Baffle]

Particularly when no one in this thread has advocated for a total gun ban.

Actually, I think there should be, unless you've got a 30-50 wild hogs problem.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But you're right, Americans (broadly) do have a wholly unnatural, fanatical even, obsession with guns. To the extent that you'd rather blame pretty much anything else for gun deaths - video games even! Oh dear.

Actually, no. While there are more guns than people in the US, most US citizens don't have one, it's just that some gun owners have a dozen each and are very loud and determined about keeping guns. Even most US gun owners, IIRC, favour stronger gun laws, but it's the rabid ones that have the power and industry backing.

 

[Jarrito3002]

This is the most nonsense I have heard. What kind of zero sum idea of all of the guns or none of the guns is being made here. No offense to the Leg End but that was some weird appeal to emotion that no one was trying to challenge.

Also this everyone armed fantasty is just the opposite side of no guns equals paradise. People overestimate their driving abilities but I am to believe they become John Wick when friendly fire by trained miliatry is common as hell.

Particularly when no one in this thread has advocated for a total gun ban.

Actually, I think there should be, unless you've got a 30-50 wild hogs problem.

I know feral hogs are big problem in the southern united states but the way it framed it made me think of that one short for Love,Sex and Robots with the farmers fighting the alien horde except its hogs.

 

[Agema]

I've basically been told in this thread that a mother and their daughter should have to take on a large man who somehow evades justice and abuses the legal system, with nothing more than spicy juice and a device that is notorious among police for how low the reliability can be when it counts, because... fuck it, it's an acceptable price. To me, it's sounding like everyone pushing for gun restriction doesn't give a flying fuck about the people that would be without arms, just because people are afraid of "high powered weaponry" they no absolutely nothing about, but think they should decide on it's ownership for other people.

Put yourself in my shoes. How does that sound?

Put yourself in our shoes.

Many of us already live in countries where a mother and her daughter without a gun have to take on a large man who somehow evades justice and abuses the legal system. And you know what? Our countries don't appear to be significantly worse off, as they don't groan under the pressure of a tidal wave of victimisation when compared to the USA.

You are right that there are trade-offs. Obviously sometimes people are saved from assault because they had a gun to dissuade an aggressor (whether used or not). But it is not immediately obvious that the benefits to them of gun ownership are worth the cost of all the other gun violence as a whole.

 

[Leg End]

A lot of us find it odd that you think we are actually blaming an inanimate objects, instead of the user of the object.

Certainly enough focus on inanimate objects and language that implies some kind of free will thereof.

Gun restriction are restriction ON PEOPLE, and their access to said animate object. Please, for the love of all that might be holy, let that sink in.

It's sunk in quite a bit. I just vehemently disagree with it.

Because this utter nonsense that we blame inanimate object is just that. Nonsense. We realise that guns are tools but, as with all tools, in the wrong hands, they are deadly. It's just that gun are SUPER EFFECTIVE at being deadly. And have been shown to kill way more people they, say, knives. AND AGAIN, gun restriction are place on PEOPLE.

A big issue I have is that people talk like without guns, murders would just suddenly take a big drop off a cliff. Nobody ever seems to consider that killings happen regardless of the tools used. Somehow manage to make guns just vanish in this country, murder isn't going to stop. People will find something else to blame as being a reason why people murder the fuck out of each other. See: The UK, Australia slowly going the same route and going after knives. Keep guns in the hands of citizens, and don't rely on ineffective police to come protect you (or not, in the case of Parkland. Or not, in the case of someone I know).

Remember how the US has changed gun laws many times over the last few centruies, inlcuding banning whole swathes of weapons types, like explosives. Becuase they USED to be protect by the second amendment til about 100 years ago when, after a little incident, they were deemed to dangerous to be allowed into the average citizens hands. You needed special training to get access. And, you know what, bombings dont happen every day in the US. (Yes, I'm aware they do happen. But not every day, which seems to be the rate mass shootings are happening.) It's almost as if gun restriction might just work....

They didn't happen every day when they were less-regulated either! It's not exactly normal for a human being to wake up one day and want to explode people. Mass Shooters, per our population, are such an actual irregularity that you're more likely to be struck by lightning than be shot by one. I'm far more likely to be run over by some fucking idiot while walking across the street, yet nobody gives a damn about that.

Yeah, but what about all the other countries that secured their independence at gunpoint and don't feel the need to fetishise guns? The US love of guns is probably a lot more about its early disinclination to maintain a strong, standing, professional army, thereby putting defence in the hands of a citizen militia.

That kinda rolled into the whole treason thing as an implication, but yeah, that's a particular factor.

"Blame" is perhaps a loaded term that doesn't really explain the rationale. It's better to say that if your state has a problem with murderers, a reasonable tactic might be to reduce access to the best and easiest tools of murderers.

I live in a US State (which I'm believing you meant State in a general sense, but it fits) that treats guns like they were Hitler. Criminals still do what they want here and Police like to shoot up innocent mothers and daughters during a manhunt. I'm not convinced disarming the public is a smart idea by any metric, going by life experience in a State known for wiping it's ass with the constitution and with it's own people. You're cattle here.

After all, this logic is already applied. Private nuclear bomb ownership would be pretty handy to deter foreign invasion and tyrannical government, too. So why don't American citizens have free access to nuclear bombs?

You really, really don't want me to have that discussion. I'm a living embodiment of ancap jokes as they apply to weapons and openly fight for people to own tanks, helicopters, jets, artillery, aircraft carriers, ect. Nukes come into it and this is just going to fall of a cliff.

 

[Baffle]

A big issue I have is that people talk like without guns, murders would just suddenly take a big drop off a cliff. Nobody ever seems to consider that killings happen regardless of the tools used.

You don't think making it much harder to obtain the tools to complete a task will reduce the chance of that task being completed? I mean, I've got a bunch of plasterboard (drywall) to put up, but I can't find my drill, so the odds of me completing this task are reduced. Same with guns and killing. Don't have a gun, can't fire a gun randomly into a crowd.

 

[Silvanus]

A non-truth.

Hmm, I (and most people in most countries worldwide) would consider it pretty unregulated when someone is able to purchase guns without a permit or having undergone any training, and without any background check.

A vague term [...]

...since my argument does not rest on specifics, yes.

Or they consider it a defense against mass shooters, who are already few in number (and thank fuck for that). On the other hand, the same person might consider disarmament of the public and the resulting defenselessness against killers to be an acceptable price in the mind of the person wanting the disarmament.

That defencelessness doesn't result in anywhere near as much death in countries without easy access to guns, so... yes, I consider it a price worth paying. Fewer people are dying.

I feel much safer, even without a gun, because my assailant will not have one... and the stats back me up. I am statistically much safer.

Except for the whole thing where that isn't the case and we still have an entire culture built around the idea that armed citizens tell tyrannical governments to pound sand, and are in fact willing to fight and die for their rights at a moment's notice, including the 2A.

Ah, so it's about defending against tyranny.

Would you say the mass shootings are an acceptable price to pay for that defence against tyranny? It's that honest cost/benefit analysis I'm asking for.

I've basically been told in this thread that a mother and their daughter should have to take on a large man who somehow evades justice and abuses the legal system, with nothing more than spicy juice and a device that is notorious among police for how low the reliability can be when it counts, because... fuck it, it's an acceptable price. To me, it's sounding like everyone pushing for gun restriction doesn't give a flying fuck about the people that would be without arms, just because people are afraid of "high powered weaponry" they no absolutely nothing about, but think they should decide on it's ownership for other people.

Don't craft hypothetical scenarios to address this through emotional manipulation; we could both do that endlessly. That mother and daughter are undeniably, demonstrably safer in my country than the USA.

 

[Leg End]

It means that the people who oppose the removal of guns do not themselves expect to be the victims of mass shootings; they accept other people being the victims of those shootings in order that they themselves are allowed to own a gun.

Or they believe mass shootings happen regardless of their own capability to own a firearm or not, and being armed is a means to combat attackers.

That is, on balance, they value their right to own a gun much more than they value the lives of those killed by gun violence. That's (at least part of) why thoughts and prayers are contemptible.

That is, on balance, people value their illusion of safety much more than they value the lives of those killed because they were at the mercy of someone who doesn't care about laws.

Yeah, don't ask me to treat this concept with anything resembling seriousness, because of the idea of armed citizens being able to do anything against the US government except annoying it is nothing short of a fever dream.

Do or don't, that's you and not me, or anyone else that believes it's a realistic possibility.

It isn't the July Revolution, you can't stack up a barricade and show them what for anymore. People who think they can take the government are suicidally overconfident, to say the least.

Or they figure that there are actually means at effectively engaging and go with that.

The reply I always hear to this is "well the military wouldn't fire on civilians and would probably defect with large amounts of hardware." But if that happens it's not really armed civilians the tyrannical government needs to worry about, it's renegade soldiers.

Well, it's a factor, but not one that should be relied upon. A Civil War in the US would be a complicated conflict, to say the least.

Oh, and I'm speaking as someone who's considering buying a gun. So spare me your "everyone pushing for gun restriction doesn't give a flying fuck about the people that would be without arms" strawman. Particularly when no one in this thread has advocated for a total gun ban.

Below your post, and Baffle again about two pages back.

Put yourself in our shoes.

Many of us already live in countries where a mother and her daughter without a gun have to take on a large man who somehow evades justice and abuses the legal system. And you know what? Our countries don't appear to be significantly worse off, as they don't groan under the pressure of a tidal wave of victimisation when compared to the USA.

I have direct experience with your specific country's government and legal system, and someone living under the whole thing, that absolutely states otherwise. The level of corruption within government to cover it's own ass is astounding and sickening.

You are right that there are trade-offs. Obviously sometimes people are saved from assault because they had a gun to dissuade an aggressor (whether used or not). But it is not immediately obvious that the benefits to them of gun ownership are worth the cost of all the other gun violence as a whole.

For me, I'm taking into account the apparent shitload of people per year that defensively use their firearm in a confrontation to diffuse or engage their attacker, the amount of mass shootings there are and the casualties, the general gang violence we do have which makes up a shitload of the statistic, the practical use of arms for people that very much rely on them, and so on. My conclusion is that we should fight terrorists and not restrain ourselves for people that do not follow the law, or care about the lives of other humans. We need to be able to protect ourselves because relying on police who are not even legally obligated to protect us is fucked. We need to be able to have arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, and everyone certainly seems convinced that Trump is Hitler 2. I in no way understand how anyone can argue for the people of the United States to either give up their arms entirely, or massively downgrade what they have access to, while also saying we have a Pedophile Rapist Nazi Murderer in office and that we're a decade away from Non-White Heterosexual extermination camps probably. That sounds like the definition of Suicide.

Someone please explain to me how that makes sense. I'd really, really appreciate it. I'm not even being a dickhead here, I truly, honest to God, cannot understand how that works.