Politics - Jason X

[Gfted1]

Yeah but they can ban weapons with capability for that, so I guess any gas powered one

 

Guess open air concerts will need Boomerang

Bolt action would definitely cut down on the body count. Or boomerangs.

 

And maybe times have changed, but I distinctly remember going to various gun shows back in the day and seeing right there for sale a self printed ~10 page manual for how to convert AR and AK-series weapons to full auto. And what! Just down there is a small bag of parts? *winkwink*nudgenudge* I'm sure the same is available online if one were to look.

 

Or have they clamped down on that sort of thing now a days?

[Malcador]

Boomerang is that anti sniper system. Or if the cops had Predator drones...Hellfire through the window!

[Gfted1]

Its got to be hard as hell to hunt with a boomerang. I assume you are trying to strike the target with the initial throw and the "boomerang" action is only if you miss? How is that in any way superior to a similar technological level, the sling and stone? Ive tried throwing a boomerang a few times, almost took an eye out.

 

Sadly even my beloved drones would not have helped in this situation. He seems to have killed himself after emptying his first 2-3(?) magazines?

[Malcador]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(countermeasure)

[Guard Dog]

 

He was using a full auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Even if it was modified it was already illegal. What kind of gun control are they hoping for here. Make it really, really illegal? Or just take them all away? If so my invitation still stands. They want my firearms come take them, smoking from my dead hands. The ammo I'll be happy to serve up first, as fast as I can fire it. 

 

It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs 

 

 

Eager? Not even. I also really, really, really doubt this would ever happen. But if it does, well... I'd rather die that day than see what comes after. You might say I have principles that I value more than my own life.

[Hurlshort]

 

Keep it civil, friends.

 

Aren't we? Sadly most of us have had these conversations before.

 

 

I'm guessing the missile through the hotel window option is frowned on by the hotel industry.

[Gfted1]

Lol, my bad. I thought you were joking around about actual boomerangs being less deadly than guns. Disregard my rant about the inefficiency of boomerangs.

 

Ive heard of that technology before and I guess it would be useful for telling people which direction not to run. Or in prolonged attacks. But in this case it was over before the cops even stormed his hotel door.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Keep it civil, friends.

 

Aren't we? Sadly most of us have had these conversations before.

 

 

I'm guessing the missile through the hotel window option is frowned on by the hotel industry.

 

 

To say nothing of the guy in the next room who's wondering what all the racket is. 

[Blarghagh]

On the other hand. After mass shootings you get large amounts of liberals talking about needing to make societal changes to prevent such things from ever occurring again. When a terrorist attack occurs you get a similar response from the right, while the left says that's just letting the terrorists win. I believe much of the right feels the winning move is to collect oneself and move forward with the parts of life that matter, that restricting gun control is letting outliers win. This sort of "double-standard/symmetry" I've never seen talked about.

 

So in the end what is the right move? More laws, bureaucracy, more acting like we have real power over terrible things? Or do we collectively vote with our time and money to charge ahead with what really takes precedence. I feel people would rather donate to help victims than politically engineer a solution that may or may not work. The optics of either of those two scenarios may hurt people's idealistic sensitivities, but collectively I think the answer to the cost/benefit analysis is revealed.

I'm not sure of the source of this, but I feel like it shows the difference?

 

 

Also pretty sure the amount peacetime Americans killed with firearms inside US borders is more than the amount of Americans killed in every war and armed conflict America has participated in put together?

 

Don't take my word for it though. Typing on my crappy phone so I didn't check.

[injurai]

The difference between what?

[Ben No.3]

 

 

He was using a full auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Even if it was modified it was already illegal. What kind of gun control are they hoping for here. Make it really, really illegal? Or just take them all away? If so my invitation still stands. They want my firearms come take them, smoking from my dead hands. The ammo I'll be happy to serve up first, as fast as I can fire it.

It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs

Eager? Not even. I also really, really, really doubt this would ever happen. But if it does, well... I'd rather die that day than see what comes after. You might say I have principles that I value more than my own life.

is this militant libertarianism?

[Blarghagh]

The difference between what?

The reactions of the left and right you described. You know, handful of horrible outliers vs systemic murder culture.

[Ben No.3]

 

On the other hand. After mass shootings you get large amounts of liberals talking about needing to make societal changes to prevent such things from ever occurring again. When a terrorist attack occurs you get a similar response from the right, while the left says that's just letting the terrorists win. I believe much of the right feels the winning move is to collect oneself and move forward with the parts of life that matter, that restricting gun control is letting outliers win. This sort of "double-standard/symmetry" I've never seen talked about.

 

So in the end what is the right move? More laws, bureaucracy, more acting like we have real power over terrible things? Or do we collectively vote with our time and money to charge ahead with what really takes precedence. I feel people would rather donate to help victims than politically engineer a solution that may or may not work. The optics of either of those two scenarios may hurt people's idealistic sensitivities, but collectively I think the answer to the cost/benefit analysis is revealed.

I'm not sure of the source of this, but I feel like it shows the difference?

 

 

Also pretty sure the amount peacetime Americans killed with firearms inside US borders is more than the amount of Americans killed in every war and armed conflict America has participated in put together?

 

Don't take my word for it though. Typing on my crappy phone so I didn't check.

Is there any left wing terrorism and why isn't armed toddlers included into the "fellow Americans"?

 

Also, armed toddlers? The **** is wrong with some people? How hard can it be to lock a room or whatever?

 

Lawnmower also seems like a particularly nasty way to die.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Ben No.3

[redneckdevil]

The thing is with gun control here in USA is that their will never be any "total" control...and that's okay and acceptable. Using any tool like fire, automobiles, sharp objects, etc is that no matter how careful and regulated you are, **** ups will happen. Someone will always get burnt, ran over and/or hit, cut themselves and others, etc and since guns are legal, we have to accept (not approve) that accidents and harm are bound to happen somewhere some shape of form.

Meaning if we can actually make any changes to prevent more from happening and it's acceptable, then let's do it, otherwise say it's bad, show population that it causes harm and make the point these things are not acceptable option.....and then move on.

Don't add rules and restrictions if they harm more than they protect and accept the variable of chaos of the unknown and move on to another subject for the political powers.

Very morbid but I'll admit it's was nice to have a horrifying bad thing happen and it just be crazy ass **** and NOT something political/racist tied to it.

[Blarghagh]

I'm pretty sure they are included, as are the immigrants with all Jihadists. Not exclusive.

 

More snark because **** gun culture and the GOP: Gosh, I wonder how big ole' Stephen's surviving victims' medical bills will be. I'm sure a gun arsenal is a god given right but not going bankrupt over it isn't. But I guess you could make guns illegal and those who want them would still find a way to get them. Wouldn't be a point to it. It's not something dangerous, like weed. Or Kinder Eggs.

 

 

 

He was using a full auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Even if it was modified it was already illegal. What kind of gun control are they hoping for here. Make it really, really illegal? Or just take them all away? If so my invitation still stands. They want my firearms come take them, smoking from my dead hands. The ammo I'll be happy to serve up first, as fast as I can fire it.

It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs

Eager? Not even. I also really, really, really doubt this would ever happen. But if it does, well... I'd rather die that day than see what comes after. You might say I have principles that I value more than my own life.

What the ****? More than anyone else's too, I guess. I'm not too fond of those who'll shoot law enforcement or military forces for their 'principles'. It's fine if you decide you're not worth **** but another human life isn't less important than your goddamn pellet guns. I honestly don't see how that statement doesn't make you as radical as a ISIS terrorist shooting people for his 'principles'.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Is there any left wing terrorism?

Antifa is responsible for millions of hurt feelings in this thread alone. Edited October 2, 2017 by KaineParker

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

He was using a full auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Even if it was modified it was already illegal. What kind of gun control are they hoping for here. Make it really, really illegal? Or just take them all away? If so my invitation still stands. They want my firearms come take them, smoking from my dead hands. The ammo I'll be happy to serve up first, as fast as I can fire it.

It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs

Eager? Not even. I also really, really, really doubt this would ever happen. But if it does, well... I'd rather die that day than see what comes after. You might say I have principles that I value more than my own life.

is this militant libertarianism?

 

 

Nah, motivated self defense. Actually I don't see how militant and libertarianism could occur in the same sentence unless as antonyms. 

[Guard Dog]

I'm pretty sure they are included, as are the immigrants with all Jihadists. Not exclusive.

 

More snark because **** gun culture and the GOP: Gosh, I wonder how big ole' Stephen's surviving victims' medical bills will be. I'm sure a gun arsenal is a god given right but not going bankrupt over it isn't. But I guess you could make guns illegal and those who want them would still find a way to get them. Wouldn't be a point to it. It's not something dangerous, like weed. Or Kinder Eggs.

 

 

 

He was using a full auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Even if it was modified it was already illegal. What kind of gun control are they hoping for here. Make it really, really illegal? Or just take them all away? If so my invitation still stands. They want my firearms come take them, smoking from my dead hands. The ammo I'll be happy to serve up first, as fast as I can fire it.

It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs

Eager? Not even. I also really, really, really doubt this would ever happen. But if it does, well... I'd rather die that day than see what comes after. You might say I have principles that I value more than my own life.

What the ****? More than anyone else's too, I guess. I'm not too fond of those who'll shoot law enforcement or military forces for their 'principles'. It's fine if you decide you're not worth **** but another human life isn't less important than your goddamn pellet guns. I honestly don't see how that statement doesn't make you as radical as a ISIS terrorist shooting people for his 'principles'.

 

 

In that scenario I did not go to their house, they came to mine. In the terms of that scenario don't come to my home to take my private property and nothing ever happens. My principles dictate that I will not take what belongs to someone else, impose my principles on someone else by force, or suffer anyone to do that to me. Basically all I want from everyone else is nothing. Leave me alone, I leave you alone. ISIS wants to either kill or forcibly convert anyone who does not think like they do.

 

Do you really want to equate those two things?

Edited October 2, 2017 by Guard Dog

[injurai]

 

The difference between what?

The reactions of the left and right you described. You know, handful of horrible outliers vs systemic murder culture.

 

 

I had in mind a comparison of the pan-left and pan-right, not just domestically to the US. I was also considering the frequency and casualties of European terror attack which are far higher. The comparison is really to draw a symmetry of double-standards. Not to say there isn't still perhaps a right answer, which (I assume) you were suggesting the left has.

 

I don't think that image really does any justice to explaining the deeper difference. Although maybe it does, because a lot of people use splash stats like that to build their world view and to underpin their reactions. But using wider knowledge and wider statistics, I don't think that image holds much clout over the difference.

 

Turning just to the USofA, mass shootings seem to be outliers even in relation to what you might call a typical armed murder. US gang culture is ensconced in gun culture, where as organized crime abroad has developed other means to take action. At some point you have to look beyond just gun violence. If you normalize on all kinds of asocial behavior I think it becomes clearer that the vector by which people act at varies along culture and access. Mass shootings and terrorist attacks are by no means the same thing. They are motivated very differently. No doubt taking guns from the US would prohibit this from occurring as easily, meaning a reduction in frequency. If you look east to Europe, knife violence is tremendously higher than the US. So it's the variability by which violence is enacted in which people hold a double-standard over what should be regulated and what is just an occurrence that we must accept and move forward from.

[Gromnir]

 

On the other hand. After mass shootings you get large amounts of liberals talking about needing to make societal changes to prevent such things from ever occurring again. When a terrorist attack occurs you get a similar response from the right, while the left says that's just letting the terrorists win. I believe much of the right feels the winning move is to collect oneself and move forward with the parts of life that matter, that restricting gun control is letting outliers win. This sort of "double-standard/symmetry" I've never seen talked about.

 

So in the end what is the right move? More laws, bureaucracy, more acting like we have real power over terrible things? Or do we collectively vote with our time and money to charge ahead with what really takes precedence. I feel people would rather donate to help victims than politically engineer a solution that may or may not work. The optics of either of those two scenarios may hurt people's idealistic sensitivities, but collectively I think the answer to the cost/benefit analysis is revealed.

I'm not sure of the source of this, but I feel like it shows the difference?

 

(skeevy chart)

Also pretty sure the amount peacetime Americans killed with firearms inside US borders is more than the amount of Americans killed in every war and armed conflict America has participated in put together?

 

Don't take my word for it though. Typing on my crappy phone so I didn't check.

 

hate the chart.  have seen it many times.

 

of course it avoids recent terrorist activity (e.g. san bernardino) from the past few years.  and 'course it ignores 2001.  so do an average from 2000 and include 2015 and 2016.  average becomes pretty darn scary.  kinda disingenuous to remove the large peaks in the curve. shoulda' left such stuff outta the chart.

 

cdc also reveals americans is 3x more likely to die o' falling accidents than firearm homicides.  motor vehicle accidents is also resulting in 3x more deaths, but we don't see much effort to death-proof cars. firearm suicides is actual 2x greater than homicides with near 25k deaths. 'ccording to the fbi's 2016 report, there were 248 victims o' murder by rifles of all types in 2014 and 2014 were the most recent year covered by the report. shotguns were providing similar but consistently greater death rates (262) while blunt force weapons such as baseball bats and hammers were considerable more deadly (+400) and bare-fisted or kicking deaths took an even greater toll (+600). knives and cutting instruments were particular dangerous with more than 1,500 corpses resulting from homicides with such weapons. handguns is by far producing the greatest body count o' human homicides and suicides, but such weapons is never genuine targeted after one o' the mass shootings.

 

as for deaths in war v peacetime firearms... *shrug* we would be willing to take tn money on such a bet, though we can't give exact totals for peacetime deaths and am not certain o' an overwhelming win.  keep in mind there has been over 1.25 million US soldier deaths in history.  add civilian casualties, particular from civil war, and am expecting the total is quite high. sure, a large number o' soldier deaths will be attributable to disease, particularly from pre-1900, but you did not preclude such. the civil war really messes with tn odds o' winning the bet as it were such a bloody conflict for Americans. the actual 2014 death rate per 100,000 due to homicide by firearms is 3.5.  given how small were the US population for much o' history, even if we kept the death rate constant, the totals would drop substantial.

 

now, if tn is including death by suicide with peacetime firearms, then he gots a chance.  is a tough call as means o' suicide over the years has changed dramatic.  coal gas ovens were the means dujour in the 40s and 50s. 

 

...

 

back to the lurk... just hate the chart every time it gets posted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps civil war deaths is almost certain underreported.  confederate reported deaths don't match the expectations o' most historians, which ain't surprising as confederate record keeping were suffering at the time.  add between 100k-200k soldier deaths is gonna be a fair adjustment. 

 

gd might know civilian civil war deaths off hand, but we do not and am too depressed by such a thing to check.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

ps civil war deaths is almost certain underreported.  confederate reported deaths don't match the expectations o' most historians, which ain't surprising as confederate record keeping were suffering at the time.  add between 100k-200k soldier deaths is gonna be a fair adjustment. 

 

gd might know civilian civil war deaths off hand, but we do not and am too depressed by such a thing to check.

 

 

There is no accurate record for the south. The north the estimate was around 15k. Most of those were during six months or so of the Valley Campaign in 1864. And the majority of those surrounding the four major engagements that took place between Martinsburg, Harper's Ferry and Fredrick. Lee's invasion the year before had very few civilian casualties because it was short lived and saw only one major engagement. In the south I've read as many as one fifth of the population was killed in the war. it's impossible to say. I do know more civilians were killed in Sherman's March, especially at Atlanta than in the north for the entire war.

[Volourn]

"What the ****? More than anyone else's too, I guess. I'm not too fond of those who'll shoot law enforcement or military forces for their 'principles'. It's fine if you decide you're not worth **** but another human life isn't less important than your goddamn pellet guns. I honestly don't see how that statement doesn't make you as radical as a ISIS terrorist shooting people for his 'principles'.          "

 

But, I bet you are okay if those police go to his door at his home, demand his guns, he refuses, then they kill him  or lock him up for the rest of his life? L0L That is Nazi talk.

 

To compare that to ISIS is intellectual dishonesty.  ISIS goes to other peoples' homes and blows them up. Same with US soldiers  being killed when in foreign countries (whether the war is jutsified or not) is FAR different than the scenario you propose.

[Malcador]

GD is white, they'd just wait him out to get his guns.

[Gromnir]

GD is white, they'd just wait him out to get his guns.

 

just like they did with the branch davidians?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

 

GD is white, they'd just wait him out to get his guns.

 

just like they did with the branch davidians?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Ok, they'd wait him out and then burn him alive.