Guns, race, religion, terror, wingnut thread

[Vrede too]

Individual anecdotes don't disprove a rule, and it's far easier to reasonably regulate guns than it is to change an entire culture or mass educate on empathy.

[JTA]

Individual anecdotes don't disprove a rule, and it's far easier to reasonably regulate guns than it is to change an entire culture or mass educate on empathy.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

I suppose we'll have to be content with the fact that even after we've banned guns, we'll still be living in a dysfunctional society populated by those who view violence as a means to achieve their ends in forcing society to conform to their respective ideologies.

Left-wing/Right-wing, two sides of the same coin. Both inherently violent.

[Vrede too]

... I suppose we'll have to be content with the fact that even after we've banned guns, we'll still be living in a dysfunctional society populated by those who view violence as a means to achieve their ends in forcing society to conform to their respective ideologies.

Sure, but without the means to be as violent.

Left-wing/Right-wing, two sides of the same coin. Both inherently violent.

What modern Left-wing American killers are you referring to?

[Wneglia]

Individual anecdotes don't disprove a rule, and it's far easier to reasonably regulate guns than it is to change an entire culture or mass educate on empathy.

How about no guns, period.
Worked great in Paris last year. 128 dead.

[O Really]

Nothing is ever going to get rid of all guns in the US, or even limit them overall very much. But - it is pretty much indisputable that no matter how warped or evil a guy is, or what his motivation is, he's not going to be able to wreak the kind of havoc this guy did without having easy access to rapid fire high capacity firearms. Further, this particular guy couldn't have wreaked his havoc as easily if his right to firearm ownership had been removed after he kept beating up his first wife.

[JTA]

... I suppose we'll have to be content with the fact that even after we've banned guns, we'll still be living in a dysfunctional society populated by those who view violence as a means to achieve their ends in forcing society to conform to their respective ideologies.

Sure, but without the means to be as violent.

Left-wing/Right-wing, two sides of the same coin. Both inherently violent.

What modern Left-wing American killers are you referring to?

Individuals? Not too sure. Well, Joseph Stalin had a pretty high body count. As did Mao. And Pol Pot. They didn't murder people directly, but they used the state to do the job for them.

I don't trust most self proclaimed leftists at all. I think most who align with the left are hypocrites. I think they're authoritarians who wouldn't balk for a moment at using the state apparatus to force individuals to conform to their ideological ends. There's only one way to force someone to adhere to your rules and that's through threat of violence.

I don't want to pay taxes, what's the state gonna do if I refuse? Take my home. I don't want to give up my home, how are those in power going to force me to leave? Via barrel of the gun by sending armed officers my way. Threat of violence. The state is inherently violent. The only way the state can wield power over the unwilling is through violence.

I think there's a continuum between freedom and safety. In a perfectly free society with no limits on individual freedom, you're not going to be very safe as you'd have a free-for all. In a completely safe society with an all encompassing totalitarian governing entity you're not going to have much freedom.

I used to be for the death penalty. You made an argument a while back that changed by views on it. Your argument on why it's bad is literally one of the main reason I'm against it now. You said something along the lines of "Do you really want the state to have the power over life and death?" I do not.

We may have perfectly benevolent leaders running the show, but there's no guarantee that a sociopath (Trump anyone?) can't work the system and take the helm.

I've become increasingly libertarian in my views lately. I don't care how benevolent or caring a law is or the state is, there's always unintended consequences, and the best system IMO is allowing governmental power to reside at the smallest entity so individuals can gather and decide what's best for their community rather than some macro-entity forcing them to adhere to what it believes is "best". I think this also decentralizes and spreads power around a bit so no single entity can wield too much.

[Wneglia]

Nothing is ever going to get rid of all guns in the US, or even limit them overall very much. But - it is pretty much indisputable that no matter how warped or evil a guy is, or what his motivation is, he's not going to be able to wreak the kind of havoc this guy did without having easy access to rapid fire high capacity firearms. Further, this particular guy couldn't have wreaked his havoc as easily if his right to firearm ownership had been removed after he kept beating up his first wife.

Do you really believe that laws limiting access to these weapons keep them out of the hands of the would be criminal? What about Chicago?

He complied with the laws

[billy.pilgrim]

Individual anecdotes don't disprove a rule, and it's far easier to reasonably regulate guns than it is to change an entire culture or mass educate on empathy.

How about no guns, period.
Worked great in Paris last year. 128 dead.

Are we comparing to the 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year

[billy.pilgrim]

... I suppose we'll have to be content with the fact that even after we've banned guns, we'll still be living in a dysfunctional society populated by those who view violence as a means to achieve their ends in forcing society to conform to their respective ideologies.

Sure, but without the means to be as violent.

Left-wing/Right-wing, two sides of the same coin. Both inherently violent.

What modern Left-wing American killers are you referring to?

Individuals? Not too sure. Well, Joseph Stalin had a pretty high body count. As did Mao. And Pol Pot. They didn't murder people directly, but they used the state to do the job for them.

I don't trust most self proclaimed leftists at all. I think most who align with the left are hypocrites. I think they're authoritarians who wouldn't balk for a moment at using the state apparatus to force individuals to conform to their ideological ends. There's only one way to force someone to adhere to your rules and that's through threat of violence.

I don't want to pay taxes, what's the state gonna do if I refuse? Take my home. I don't want to give up my home, how are those in power going to force me to leave? Via barrel of the gun by sending armed officers my way. Threat of violence. The state is inherently violent. The only way the state can wield power over the unwilling is through violence.

I think there's a continuum between freedom and safety. In a perfectly free society with no limits on individual freedom, you're not going to be very safe as you'd have a free-for all. In a completely safe society with an all encompassing totalitarian governing entity you're not going to have much freedom.

I used to be for the death penalty. You made an argument a while back that changed by views on it. Your argument on why it's bad is literally one of the main reason I'm against it now. You said something along the lines of "Do you really want the state to have the power over life and death?" I do not.

We may have perfectly benevolent leaders running the show, but there's no guarantee that a sociopath (Trump anyone?) can't work the system and take the helm.

I've become increasingly libertarian in my views lately. I don't care how benevolent or caring a law is or the state is, there's always unintended consequences, and the best system IMO is allowing governmental power to reside at the smallest entity so individuals can gather and decide what's best for their community rather than some macro-entity forcing them to adhere to what it believes is "best". I think this also decentralizes and spreads power around a bit so no single entity can wield too much.

Be careful with the utopian libertarian consequences

[Wneglia]

Did political correctness prevent his employer from blowing whistle?

[Vrede too]

Individual anecdotes don't disprove a rule, and it's far easier to reasonably regulate guns than it is to change an entire culture or mass educate on empathy.

How about no guns, period.
Worked great in Paris last year. 128 dead.

Only idiots are so obsessed with their fetishes that they publicly argue that mixing guns and booze is a good idea. Don't you know any trauma surgeons?

Since you mention it, though, what's the French gun violence rate compared to ours?

[Vrede too]

... I suppose we'll have to be content with the fact that even after we've banned guns, we'll still be living in a dysfunctional society populated by those who view violence as a means to achieve their ends in forcing society to conform to their respective ideologies.

Sure, but without the means to be as violent.

Left-wing/Right-wing, two sides of the same coin. Both inherently violent.

What modern Left-wing American killers are you referring to?

Individuals? Not too sure. Well, Joseph Stalin had a pretty high body count. As did Mao. And Pol Pot. They didn't murder people directly, but they used the state to do the job for them.

So, you can't think of any modern Left-wing American killers. Kinda defeats your point.

I don't trust most self proclaimed leftists at all. I think most who align with the left are hypocrites. I think they're authoritarians who wouldn't balk for a moment at using the state apparatus to force individuals to conform to their ideological ends. There's only one way to force someone to adhere to your rules and that's through threat of violence.

I don't want to pay taxes, what's the state gonna do if I refuse? Take my home. I don't want to give up my home, how are those in power going to force me to leave? Via barrel of the gun by sending armed officers my way. Threat of violence. The state is inherently violent. The only way the state can wield power over the unwilling is through violence.

Way more often they use liens and garnishments.

I think there's a continuum between freedom and safety. In a perfectly free society with no limits on individual freedom, you're not going to be very safe as you'd have a free-for all. In a completely safe society with an all encompassing totalitarian governing entity you're not going to have much freedom.

I used to be for the death penalty. You made an argument a while back that changed by views on it. Your argument on why it's bad is literally one of the main reason I'm against it now. You said something along the lines of "Do you really want the state to have the power over life and death?" I do not.

That plus the irreversibility when we all know that the state lies and flubs.

We may have perfectly benevolent leaders running the show, but there's no guarantee that a sociopath (Trump anyone?) can't work the system and take the helm.

I've become increasingly libertarian in my views lately. I don't care how benevolent or caring a law is or the state is, there's always unintended consequences, and the best system IMO is allowing governmental power to reside at the smallest entity so individuals can gather and decide what's best for their community rather than some macro-entity forcing them to adhere to what it believes is "best". I think this also decentralizes and spreads power around a bit so no single entity can wield too much.

Ever read Small Is Beautiful?

Anyhow, Libertarians are politically irrelevant (they're only exploited for corporate ends) and the left is more anti-authoritarian violence here and now.

[Vrede too]

Did political correctness prevent his employer from blowing whistle?

No, at most it prevented his employer from firing him, and we don't even know if that's the case without hearing from his employer.

Here's the source article your article selected its point from, lots more there and note the different headline:

Co-worker: Omar Mateen homophobic, 'unhinged'

So, though you immediately attributed it entirely to Islamic radicalism, your own new source puts forth a multi-year history of homophobia and instability without mention of Islamic radicalism.

Did NRA political correctness make it so easy for him to be armed with an AR-15?

[Vrede too]

Do you really believe that laws limiting access to these weapons keep them out of the hands of the would be criminal?

Epidemiology much? Homes, states and comparable nations with fewer guns and/or stricter regulation all have less gun violence.

What about Chicago?

What about it, given that it's a short commute from gun happy IN?

Gun Violence in America: 11 U.S. Cities With Double-Digit Rates of Gun Homicides
Every day, people are killed by gun violence in America; the chances of being the victim of a gun homicide are highest if you stop in these 11 towns.

Countdown of top 30 cities in the U.S. with the highest murder rates

Ones in gun control and gun happy states. Cities have problems, and they're made worse by guns. That's why state-to-state is a more valid comparison.

He complied with the laws

Liarbart?

Yep, the FL laws that permit over the counter, immediate sales of AR-15s without any training, psych evaluation, interviews of others, declaration of need or prohibitions barring felony conviction or psych commitment. What's your point?

[O Really]

Nothing is ever going to get rid of all guns in the US, or even limit them overall very much. But - it is pretty much indisputable that no matter how warped or evil a guy is, or what his motivation is, he's not going to be able to wreak the kind of havoc this guy did without having easy access to rapid fire high capacity firearms. Further, this particular guy couldn't have wreaked his havoc as easily if his right to firearm ownership had been removed after he kept beating up his first wife.

Do you really believe that laws limiting access to these weapons keep them out of the hands of the would be criminal? What about Chicago?

He complied with the laws

What about Chicago? Two words: Gary Indiana. Or anywhere else in Indiana for that matter. Unless they get a bunch of Mexicans to build a big wall around Chicago, guns will flow in from outside. Doesn't mean Chicago shouldn't try, though.

National laws limiting access to those weapons and/or the high capacity magazines and/or the ammunition they fire will, over time, make it much more difficult for anybody - wannabe criminal, real criminal, whoever - to get them. You can't stop a criminal from being a criminal, but you don't have to make it easy for them. Do you really believe that if RPG launchers were as easy to come by as AR-15's that the criminals would not use them?

[JTA]

Friends of mine feeling the Bern:
- The government is corrupt. The system is rigged.
- The government needs to institute a ban on firearms.

K.

[Vrede too]

No one is seriously proposing a "ban on firearms", and it won't ever be enacted and wouldn't survive the courts if it was. That's just gunhugger fear mongering.

[JTA]

No one is seriously proposing a "ban on firearms", and it won't ever be enacted and wouldn't survive the courts if it was. That's just gunhugger fear mongering.

True true, although some people legitimately want that to happen. It won't, you're right.

In the case of this Orlando massacre, I don't think there was a way to have prevented it. The guy passed background checks, obtained his weapons legally. The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban.

For the record: I do agree with strict background checks.

[Vrede too]

... The only way to have prevented this massacre was an outright ban....

An outright ban on assault-style weapons and possibly restrictions on clip size and numbers of clips one can own (not sure what he had), both of which are constitutional, would have likely reduced the body count. There's a reason that they are the weapons of choice for mass murderers.

Other ideas:

Psych testing.
Family, coworker and friend interviews. Sounds like many people knew he was seriously off beforehand.
Making background checks more comprehensive than just looking at felony convictions and mental health commitment. Maybe his existing FBI file contained enough damning but not criminal info. to reasonably justify denying the purchase.
Requiring a demonstration of need.
Closing the "gun show loophole". If he would have failed a background check, he still could have gotten the same gun.

These things won't stop all shooters, especially in our uber-armed short term, but they will make it more difficult for them. This is why states and comparable nations with stronger controls have less gun violence.

[billy.pilgrim]

Did political correctness prevent his employer from blowing whistle?

No.


Did embarrassment prevent you from answering if we should compare the 100+ gun deaths in Paris to the 30,000+ gun deaths in the us