The Oregon shooting

[Leg End]

Well either you vastly under estimate the American army OR you vastly over estimate guns and arms ...

Or you vastly underestimate the American people and assume the army will follow orders to slaughter their countrymen.

So you're in the camp of "wait there fuck face while I get me gun outta this "pretty" safe! You better not start murdering me while I get me gun!"

Nope, in the camp of putting my valuables and some of my pricier guns in there while having firearms easily accessible outside of the safe in muh bedroom. Though, there are biometric safes that help for those that want the protection of a safe with the easy access to their guns in such an emergency.

Which is which exactly? Either way, if I get fucked up free health care! Sorry you got hurt defending yourself, hope you have enough stuff left to sell to afford to get better!

Because paid for with your tax dollars is totally free.
But, I'm insured, so I'm good. For those that aren't, there are ways to pay for your health care and even "free" or nearly "free" healthcare through the gubment to those with low income.

I think you mean "we prefer guns over lives, fuck you very much!".

We prefer to be free and accept the cost of freedom, you mean.

Well maybe if they didn't have guns they would sort it like men and not pull a trigger.

Common fallacy that everyone with guns settles things with guns. Yeah, no. Firearms are a last resort there buddy. Though, speaking of comedians, look into Doug Stanhope and his views on guns and, a fun point, with the UK's free healthcare, they don't care about getting hurt in fights so, who cares? Just punch everyone and let the state foot the bill. No consequence to the person sans a short hospital visit.

As for the shotgun stuff, instead of robbing you, you just destroy the stuff they would have taken? Great solution!

I have no idea what you're saying. You mean shoot my belongings?

 

[Muspelheim]

Does it really matter if you stuff your house to the roof with rifles, shotguns and assault rifles (or whatever those are called these days) when the gubbamint could just shove a drone-launched Hellfire missile down the chimney?

Sure can. But doing that on American soil in populated neighborhoods and cities does not really earn brownie points with anybody, so it'd beyond guarantee there would be no one on the government's side. Those drones don't fly themselves. Well, not entirely anyway.

Plus, it's not too hard to actually take a drone down, either by means of attacking the means of keeping it stocked or directly attacking it. Somehow.

Also, the Cartels are coming pretty close in regards to ordering big booms on places...

I suppose that's true, I doubt the whole U.S. Army would stay loyal to Pentagon if there really was a civil war on. It's more than well enough equipped to wipe out a farmer's militia will small arms and pick-ups, I'd imagine, but the question would be if they'd want to.

I'll never say a word against home defence. The home is sacred, and anyone should be allowed to defend it, no question about it. But even with expanding crime syndicates on the horison, I still wonder exactly how much firepower is reasonable for a civilian household.

But then again, I've stumbled into a hole in my own logic. General 'consumer' firearms are more than enough to cause a massacre on their own, making my own point rather moot...

 

[Leg End]

I suppose that's true, I doubt the whole U.S. Army would stay loyal to Pentagon if there really was a civil war on. It's more than well enough equipped to wipe out a farmer's militia will small arms and pick-ups, I'd imagine, but the question would be if they'd want to.

I'd imagine, at an absolute conservative estimate, you'd have at least half of everybody deserting or not showing up, and they'd even be taking some of dem fancy tax funded toys with them.

I'll never say a word against home defence. The home is sacred, and anyone should be allowed to defend it, no question about it. But even with expanding crime syndicates on the horison, I still wonder exactly how much firepower is reasonable for a civilian household.

Eh, my stance has always been a measuring of "does it destroy the house in the process?", then it's reasonable. Otherwise, just keep it in the back yard. Though that's more me making a bad joke.

But then again, I've stumbled into a hole in my own logic. General 'consumer' firearms are more than enough to cause a massacre on their own, making my own point rather moot...

Actually, I'd argue modern consume firearms are very ineffective at executing massacres and it brings the modern mentality of these arms with it. With every "mass shooting" done, you're getting casualty rates that are far below what you'd imagine. Then again, that's also a bit of realism creeping back in because guns are not as effective in general at slaughtering people as you'd think either. Hell, I'd even argue that fully automatic weapons would result in even fewer deaths because of that very mentality with using a fully automatic weapon seems to have.

 

[CeeBod]

As a non-American, I obviously just don't get the pro-gun arguments, and I really dont understand how anyone can continue repeating them every single time yet another mass shooting happens like a stuck record, without ever noticing that maybe this extreme number of shootings suggests that something is wrong and that it might be sensible to look at changing a few things!

Number 1 on my WTF list when it comes to guns is: why are gun owners so obsessed with defending their property with lethal force? It's just stuff! It is so not worth losing your life over, or becoming a killer over. I don't have guns, or any other form of weapons. I have a burglar alarm because that makes insurance cheaper. I pay taxes, some of which is spent on a police force, and it's their job to deal with criminals, not mine. When I lived at my parents' house, we were burgled a few times - it's not a pleasant experience, but it's really not something worth getting your panties in a twist about.

Number 2 - Why is having the right to carry out an armed revolution against a democratically elected government seen as a good thing? I dislike many things my government do, I didn't vote for the party that won, but there is literally no scenario that ends up with me taking up arms to try to fight them - that's what crazy people do! My government have an army, an air force, a navy, nuclear weapons, drones, allies, they have facilities all over the country, and they have rapid response forces on high alert at all times - what kind of paranoid insanity involves loading up a shotgun and deciding it's time to take them on???

 

[Fdzzaigl]

It's simple really, you either pick disarmament and gun control (which means ALL guns) and decrease gun violence.

Or you pick freedom to own guns, get gun crime rates that are out of control, an arms race with your own government and police forces (guess who's gonna win, you or the multi-billion dollar high tech army).

That ain't up for debate, anyone with a critical mind who has any interest in reading up even a little bit of unbiased reports on this and studying a little bit of history knows this. The end.

Only an insane person could feel safe because they have a gun on them when at the same time anyone else above legal age can also potentially have one.

 

[Leg End]

As a non-American, I obviously just don't get the pro-gun arguments, and I really dont understand how anyone can continue repeating them every single time yet another mass shooting happens like a stuck record, without ever noticing that maybe this extreme number of shootings suggests that something is wrong and that it might be sensible to look at changing a few things!

Totally. We need to find out why people are snapping and desiring to make swiss cheese of people.

Number 1 on my WTF list when it comes to guns is: why are gun owners so obsessed with defending their property with lethal force? It's just stuff!

Well, it's generally from the assumption that someone breaking into your home has probably the worst intentions for you and the inhabitants, along with the possessions within. Also a bit of a cultural thing from when it was far more common for people to fuck with your livestock and you'd be defending your livelihood, which still holds to today, just with far less cattle.

It is so not worth losing your life over, or becoming a killer over.

Well, if there is a point where someone is breaking into your home and they have the means of killing you and are actively threatening you with it, or even if not, how exactly does that thought process work from there? "Oh he's just pointing a gun at me, he's totally not going to use it". A firearm being used in such a way is them already breaching the number one rule of firearms safety, "do not point your weapon at anything you are not fully willing to destroy", which is absolutely reason to assume that, them having this lethal force, they are more than willing to use it and their word means nothing. They're already in your home pointing a gun at you, how sane is it to believe they don't intend to use it?

I don't have guns, or any other form of weapons.

Alright.

I have a burglar alarm because that makes insurance cheaper.

Eh, those things can be ripoffs man.

I pay taxes, some of which is spent on a police force, and it's their job to deal with criminals, not mine.

Brings to mind "When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.". Plus, the supreme court has actually ruled that cops have no obligation to protect you, just to investigate crimes. Seriously.

When I lived at my parents' house, we were burgled a few times - it's not a pleasant experience, but it's really not something worth getting your panties in a twist about.

That seriously reminded me of someone arguing that rape is not a pleasant experience but it's no reason to shoot someone over.
I'd say both that and someone breaking into your home is quite a serious thing and should be reason to get your panties tangled hardcore.

Number 2 - Why is having the right to carry out an armed revolution against a democratically elected government seen as a good thing?

Because it's not uncommon for a democratically elected government to become a tyrannical one in the blink of an eye.

I dislike many things my government do, I didn't vote for the party that won, but there is literally no scenario that ends up with me taking up arms to try to fight them - that's what crazy people do!

Well, you weren't the colonies so...

My government have an army, an air force, a navy, nuclear weapons, drones, allies, they have facilities all over the country, and they have rapid response forces on high alert at all times - what kind of paranoid insanity involves loading up a shotgun and deciding it's time to take them on???

The same that made my country. Except replace much of what you said with just a fuckton of guns and the greatest army on the planet at the time.

I don't think that most Koreans are crazy for their belief in "Fan Death", I accept it as a culturally bound syndrome.

Funny enough, it was a syndrome planted by the government to save electricity.

 

[Leg End]

Now, tell me how that is in any way similar to humans.

Valuables come in all shapes and sizes.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Insanity, unless you were raised to believe that what you call insane is the norm. I don't think that most Koreans are crazy for their belief in "Fan Death", I accept it as a culturally bound syndrome. It's too bad that the American fixation with guns has more than just amusing fallout.

True, but you'd think that at some point the massive weight of history and sheer statistical numbers as well as practically the entire rest of the civilized world pointing out that your behaviour and thought processes are ridiculous and insane would inspire some true self-reflection, even amongst the hardcore supporters.

 

[Ryotknife]

As a non-American, I obviously just don't get the pro-gun arguments, and I really dont understand how anyone can continue repeating them every single time yet another mass shooting happens like a stuck record, without ever noticing that maybe this extreme number of shootings suggests that something is wrong and that it might be sensible to look at changing a few things!

Number 1 on my WTF list when it comes to guns is: why are gun owners so obsessed with defending their property with lethal force? It's just stuff! It is so not worth losing your life over, or becoming a killer over. I don't have guns, or any other form of weapons. I have a burglar alarm because that makes insurance cheaper. I pay taxes, some of which is spent on a police force, and it's their job to deal with criminals, not mine. When I lived at my parents' house, we were burgled a few times - it's not a pleasant experience, but it's really not something worth getting your panties in a twist about.

Number 2 - Why is having the right to carry out an armed revolution against a democratically elected government seen as a good thing? I dislike many things my government do, I didn't vote for the party that won, but there is literally no scenario that ends up with me taking up arms to try to fight them - that's what crazy people do! My government have an army, an air force, a navy, nuclear weapons, drones, allies, they have facilities all over the country, and they have rapid response forces on high alert at all times - what kind of paranoid insanity involves loading up a shotgun and deciding it's time to take them on???

because there is no gaurantee they are solely after your stuff. In the US there is a roughly 25% chance if someone invades your home while you are there you will be attacked. In my city, there were a pair of robbers who would kill the homeowners and then loot the place at their convience. They even slit the throats of an elderly couple while they were asleep.

Stories like these are not that uncommon either. Logically, yes you are correct, however people are not always logical when adrenaline or, god forbid, drugs are coursing through their system. They can see the homeowners, panic, and attack them not wanting there to be witnesses.

roughly 250,000 people are injured during home robberies every year in the US.

As for number 2, that is pretty much the reason this country even exists. It would be pretty hypocritical to go "yes! we violently overthrew the old government. Our cause is just!.....PS you guys are not allowed to violently overthrow us"

 

[Dalisclock]

Nice assumptions. No, I just particularly like having the means to protect myself, be it from someone breaking into my house, to my own government if things go sour.

As much as I appreciate the "tyrannical government" reasoning, at this point I don't think it means jack anymore. A "citizen uprising" would probably be smacked down with drone strikes and with the survivors getting shipped off to Gitmo or other black sites to be held for the next 10-20 years without trial and then torture you to find out where your buddies are.

I can say this because we've let the government do this for other people AKA "Enemy Combatants" the past 14 years without really giving any kind of a shit. They just haven't been doing it American citizens(mostly).

The Irony is that a lot of people who scream about tyrannical governments will defend Gitmo and act like torture doesn't happen or just excuse it outright.

 

[Leg End]

As much as I appreciate the "tyrannical government" reasoning, at this point I don't think it means jack anymore. A "citizen uprising" would probably be smacked down with drone strikes and with the survivors getting shipped off to Gitmo or other black sites to be held for the next 10-20 years without trial and then torture you to find out where your buddies are.

With the majority of the country participating with very liberal estimates, there is not a military force on the planet that can take on US citizens, all branches of the US armed forces included. This doesn't even take into consideration that many if not most of those in our military would not act against the people of their own country, especially since their oath includes the threat of their own government.

I can say this because we've let the government do this for other people AKA "Enemy Combatants" the past 14 years without really giving any kind of a shit. They just haven't been doing it American citizens(mostly).

Which is why I am sad when people don't even do anything politically.

The Irony is that a lot of people who scream about tyrannical governments will defend Gitmo and act like torture doesn't happen or just excuse it outright.

Which is why I have not much faith in humanity as a whole but I have faith in people willing to fight for freedom.

If anyone gets off their ass.

 

[Vahir]

Shall not be infringed. That's why. Hell we shouldn't even have those restrictions for vehicles because right to travel but again, gotta restrict freedums errywhere amirite.

I know this is a quote going pretty far back, but I'd like to reiterate Breakfastman's "What the fuck". This is insane.

 

[Leg End]

I know this is a quote going pretty far back, but I'd like to reiterate Breakfastman's "What the fuck". This is insane.

If there is a point you're wishing to make please explain it because I don't see it.

 

[EternallyBored]

Now, tell me how that is in any way similar to humans.

Valuables come in all shapes and sizes.

and those that are kept in the open around other people run the risk of being stolen or destroyed, even those guarded by guns and guards, banks and armored cars get robbed, and the armed guards are usually the first ones shot. Valuables get stolen or destroyed all the time.

A lot of shit under armed guard has been stolen in the past, including gold, fort knox hasn't been robbed because the sheer level of security would necessitate more force than any small group of civilians could muster, that and it's completely exclusionary nature makes it easy to watch, I don't want to get involved in the actual gun debate going on here, but that picture is ridiculous. It's shallow emotional manipulation on the level of those anti-gun picture that make guns look like the leading cause of child death.

 

[BytByte]

No guns means no gun crimes. That will never happen, but striving for that ideal is how things will get better

And if someone thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from an extremely rare break in (a robbery), you should not own a gun because that is some high class paranoia.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

One thing that never seems to come up in discussions about fighting against the government is the opposing militias. Sure, people are quick to point out that not all of the military will remain loyal to the government, yet it seems to be automatically assumed that "the citizens", as one giant hivemind, will all stand together against the tyranny. That's not how civil wars work. Sure, the anti-government forces are better armed as a result of the second amendment, but you'd better hope you still outnumber the pro-government militias, otherwise there's really no point getting into this dick measuring contest with the military.

Considering the fact that tyrannical governments tend to excel at propaganda and population control, and considering the fact that Americans already seem to despise anyone who gets labelled a "terrorist" or "traitor", it looks like you'll be fighting quite a few of your fellow gun owners when the time comes, so if you want someone to be paranoid about, your gun loving neighbour is probably just as likely to put a bullet in your skull during this hypothetical war as the guy behind the badge.

Hell, there's always been this strange duality with the conservative-right in America. On one hand, they seem to view the government as this corrupt tyranny that's ready to take their freedom at any moment, prompting them to stock pile guns and ammo to fight back. But, on the other hand, they seem to side with the police whenever there's a shooting; worship the military and its actions; worship the flag; support the pledge of allegiance (seriously, what the fuck. What's next, the two minute hate?); and often label people "un-American" for criticising the government, with this bullshit "love it or leave it" mentality. Don't they realise that nationalism and patriotism are extremely potent ways to exploit the masses into becoming unthinking, unquestioning, loyal drones for a tyranny? In fact, obsessive nationalism and patriotism is pretty much the first thing any tyranny needs to implement before they can begin operating with impunity; in America, they don't even need to bother. There's so much flag-waving jingoism in American culture already that all they need to do is point it in the right direction.
Honestly, I really do wonder which side the right will fight for if the time comes. Considering the right is far more obsessed with guns than the left (oh, don't give me that look. I know it's a generalisation, and you know it's true), I really have to wonder whether all these guns are simply handing the government a convenient militia to supplement their military.

All the guns in the world won't save you from tyranny if the people holding them still side with their government.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Also, to add to my above post, why is it automatically assumed that an armed revolution would be a good thing, or that it will produce a better society with more freedom? Do you realise that this armed revolution is just as likely to produce a worse society afterward, as many revolutions do. The tyranny could very likely come from the uprising, in fact, they could very likely be the "bad guys" from the beginning.
In my above post I talked about people siding with the government in this situation as if it were an inevitable evil, but thinking on it, I realise that this revolution could just be some crazy terrorist group, and the government could well be justified in bombing them into dust.

Of course, one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary, so which side you fall on depends on personal ideals.

 

[Shock and Awe]

He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.

Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.

I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.

Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I will say a few things, and take it as you will...

The problem I have with doing away with the 2nd amendment is that it would set a dangerous precident of the Government being able to alter the document that tells American citizens not what they cannot do but what the government cannot do to them... by that reasoning they could take changing or outright getting rid of one of the fundamental rights the government isn't supposed to be able to take away. What would stop them from altering freedom of the press? Or the right of reasonable privacy... I just don't like the idea of giving the government the ability to remove restrictions placed on them by the framework of the Constitution.
If we ever propose the alteration of the Bill of Rights, then the People should ultimately be the ones to decide by way of the power of voting, and not Congress or the Senate, nor the Executive Branch.

And I don't personally fear the government using the military against the People because the oath taken by soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and women is not an oath to the government, but an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which is a document of the People, not the Fed. I'd daresay soldiers are the least likely to blindly follow unlawful orders against citizens. If it ever came down to that there'd be a huge schism in the ranks and it would probably send us into a highly chaotic state rather than a tyrannical facist state... Either way it wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

He could have had one. Oregon has concealed carry and colleges are not allowed to be gun free zones.

Take this with a grain of salt as I heard it in the insane aftermath but apparently, a professor stated that guns are verboten on campus and not even the campus rent-a-cops have guns.

I went to the school. I'm aware that the security guards did not carry guns. I am aware that most people don't carry them there. That's mostly because most people don't carry in the area, I've never seen someone with a gun here outside of when they are going on a hunting trip or something like that and I've lived here for fifteen years. Legally, he could have owned a gun and brought it to the campus, provided he had a permit.

Looked at the laws, and you're right. Campus carry was legal in this case, with someone on the other side of campus holding a classroom during this shooting. If nothing else, I admit when I am wrong. I however maintain that campus carry is overall a positive for colleges because it barely costs the school anything and there is simply little reason to not allow it.

Fun fact, I agree. My desires in terms of gun control have nothing to do with banning concealed carry. I just want registration, licensing, and mandatory background checks on all sales and exchanges. In my mind, using a gun in any circumstances is a public act like driving a car on a road, and is something that ought to be restricted similarly.