mitymazda

iTrader: (1)

Subjects... the lot of ya. You don't get a say, cause you never fought for it. The difference between a subject and a citizen. That "something" is a thing called Liberty, and you'll never taste because the shackles have always rested easy on you and your ilk throughout history and you've been content with it. This wasn't a tragedy, it was an evil act. You can't fight evil with laws they don't subscribe to. Society is voluntary and you can't regulate morality. So what have everybody live under draconian laws to be safe and happy? What happens when you don't agree with what the States vision of safe or happy is? We have a choice to live freely with one another and act accordingly. You have no option but to turn to the state to give you permission to do anything. That's fine you do you, we will do us. Let history show who is the driving force of progress, Light and human potential.

stratosteve

iTrader: (1)

Could you please explain.....

mitymazda

iTrader: (1)

Your ignorant of the facts of the situation. The gun problem is in places where culture has degraded due to left wing policy and guns are heavily regulated. And yes people should be wary of the State. If you look at the last 60 years, the largest death tolls are at the feet of the state where those death's occurred. People do need a means to resist the States "good" intentions. It's all too easy for diluted folks like you to act believing the end justifies the means.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I was actually being serious.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert my any means, but I was under the impression that it was completely illegal under US Federal law to sell any fully-automatic rifle manufactured or imported after 1986, and that this law has created an artificial scarcity which has driven the price of pre-ban weapons to levels which are essentially unattainable by any but the most dedicated collectors / enthusiasts.

Dann0

Does anybody else feel that more info about the shooter's motivations should have been made public by now? The FBI has had a full day in his house, with his computer, in his car, etc, etc, and still no motive released to the public. Somebody doesn't spend this much time, money and effort planning and executing something this big, without powerful reasons. I very much want to know what they were.

dleavitt

iTrader: (1)

While I want to know just as much as you do, we have to remember that investigations take time. My guess is that his motivation is known, but they are holding off disclosing so as to not tip off any accomplices that may exist. At least that's what would make sense to me.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

Gee Emm asked a question that I believed to be essentially "why don't gun owners band together to solve problems so that they can protect their interests." If this is roughly the correct interpretation of the question asked here is my attempt at answering it.

For me personally, my fear is "where does it end." What is the end goal you are trying to achieve? Anti-gunners claim they don't want to take the guns, but that mass shootings are unacceptable. BUT - if all the remedies they propose don't actually solve the problem, what prevents them from asking for the next concession and the next?

For example, every time one of these shootings happens they talk about "universal background checks". So let's pretend for a second that they get universal background checks. And then the next spree shooting happens because spree shooters rarely get their firearms from illegal means. (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sa...egally-n474441)

So, they ask for magazine size restrictions. And pretend they get it. And the next spree shooter brings a dozen 10 round magazines and two loaded pistols with them. They still kill dozens.

And so they ban semi-auto rifles. And the next spree shooter brings a bunch of autoloading pistols. (Seung-Hui Cho, virginia tech, 2007)

And so they ban auto-loading pistols, and the next spree shooter brings his bolt action to the top of a tower and shoots from an elevated platform. (Charles Witman, 1966)

So now we have shotguns... Which could very easily inflict massive damage on multiple victims...

So, where does it end? Look, I am personally for safe storage, responsible purchases, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (provided due process is protected), etc, but none of those is a magic solution. There are millions of guns in the hands of civilians in the United States and without completely removing ALL of them from circulation there will always be some number of deadly crimes committed by people using them. Is it a form of "slippery slope" argument? Yes, but show me where it stops before I even consider giving up a freedom. Show me where it will finally be enough liberty I sacrifice. Only then will I personally consider it.

Gee Emm

I never said I knew all about it, or had the answers. What I did do was ask why all of you don't seem to give a rats **** that 59 people are dead and (at last count I saw) over FIVE HUNDRED people wounded, by one person with a collection of guns. And this is just the latest slaughter.

Now what should I care? I am not a citizen of the US, I don't plan on visiting, so if you people plan on having regular mass shootings, it is unlikely that I will be affected, directly or indirectly.

It just seems to me that the victims and their families are being let down by your society and your lawmakers. What kind of civilised society can turn a blind eye to such carnage wreaked on totally innocent people, and not want to do something to prevent another? Why are (presumably) intelligent people, people who love their families, more interested in protecting their guns than in protecting the innocent?

Fine, you want to take cheap shots at me because of my admitted ignorance. Is that the best you can do? No suggestions? Does it worry you that these people have died/been injured? What would you have them do to not be dead/injured? What would you do, to not have one or more of your family/friends amongst the casualties? Or do you think that 59 dead and 500+ wounded is no big deal, nothing to get excited about? Are these massacres just a small price to keep things the way you want?

Gee Emm

Close! I was suggesting that you be part of the solution. I would not suggest that it is your (gun owners') sole responsibility to find a (some part of the) solution.

Identifying things that won't work, have difficulties, etc is a cop out. You have to get real. You have to confront the issues head on, and look for ways of making improvements. It will require imagination, risk taking, a willingness to innovate. It is almost inconceivable that there is a single magic bullet (sorry) out there that will solve it. But there are probably dozens of things that can be used to chip away at it. The analogy with road deaths is probably a good one, where over decades the toll has come down due to a massive range of interventions - but we still have cars.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Gee Emm,

The majority of us that don't use drugs made them illegal so now nobody uses drugs. See how well that worked out?

It was illegal to kill people. How well did that do? If there were more laws it would have been even more illegal and he definitely would have been thwarted, huh?

168 people were killed by fertilizer and diesel fuel in Oklahoma City. Both of which were obtained legally. If the same truck was pulled into the valet at the main entrance of the Mandalay there would have been a thousand dead. You can't legislate morality.

Making guns illegal only works with the law-abiding. Where's that dead horse? See also: illegal to kill people. See also: gun free zones.


The problem is people. See also: Cars and Coffee. The problem is people there, too. The problem is always people.

Gee Emm

Yes, I have read Heinlein too.

It actually WAS a tragedy, and an evil act. Maybe it wasn't a tragedy to you, but to the families of the dead and injured it surely was.

Gee Emm

You forgot alcohol.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have carefully avoided giving prescriptions, because I have none for you. But it seems you have none of your own, or you do not see that these massacres are a problem in need of a solution. Fine. Keep shooting the innocents, they are only Americans after all, not people you care about. Or have I got that wrong?

Gee Emm

Nope. 59 people died and over 500 were wounded in America I thought. Nothing like that here for a long time.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

You may not live in a place where natural disasters and a subsequent scarcity of resources are common. If you've got the only food/water/fuel/generator and a group of others have done without for 8 days they may decide to come and take your family's supplies. Phones are down. Cell towers have no power. Cops are unable to be signaled. What then?

Before someone says it's my fault for living here:

What about a biological agent or plague-like disease delivered by terrorists or foreign government into the population centers of the northeast as the disaster? People panic and try to evacuate but only cause to spread the contaminant. They run out of fuel in traffic jams. Then they run out of food. Deliveries of fuel and food stop. People don't go to work at the power plant, fire department, and police station. Survivors are desperate and are brutalizing others to feed themselves. Defend your family and your resources with a steak knife.

Or an even easier scenario, an electromagnetic pulse weapon (yes they exist and are not particularly difficult to make) knocks out every electronic device for a couple hundred miles. Most military vehicles are hardened against them because they are a real thing. No power, no communication, no cars, no radios or phones. Most people wouldn't even know what was going on. Walk home from work. Survive days with no refrigerator and no running water. How many days of drinking water do you have at home? Non-perishable food? How long before society devolves? Better grab an ice pick and have the wife and kids stand behind you when the bad guys come.

Outside of a disaster, what about the gang of thugs that kicks in your back door and comes for your money/drugs/wife/daughter? You going to use your cell phone to thwart them? Better wake up and dial quickly.

Do I need a 30 round magazine? God, I hope not. I hope I never need to fire a shot in defense. Will I buy a 30 round magazine? No. But if there was a violent mob in my front yard that intended to enter my home and do my family harm I would probably wish for one. Or two.

Certainly I can't be the only one that worries about protecting their family like this? I really do worry about home invasions and that sort of thing. I worry about protecting my loved ones.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

When did England restrict the ability of people to protect themselves with guns? Oh yes, right before violent crime shot up.

When criminals don't fear death at the hands of their victims they get awfully bold.

Monk

iTrader: (3)

Good point. Then again, that wasn't a common occurrence in your country even before your confiscation, and you have still had mass killings since.
If more restrictions are the answer, then why did our homicide rate decline after restrictions were loosened?
Why has it continued to fall while concealed carry has increased?
Why did violent crime in general and sexual assault especially increase after your confiscation?

Of course you don't have any solutions. The only thing that "worked" in your country was mass confiscation.
It's the only thing that might make an actual difference here, but even that is highly unlikely.
You might not care that you don't have the right to bear arms, and that's fine. You never had it in the first place.


See above. We've had the problem "chipped away at" for decades.
The end goal of any politician who is honest enough to say it is confiscation and an end to our second amendment rights.
This is frightening in a time when those same politicians and their supporters are also keen on limiting our first amendment rights as well.



You are sorely mistaken suggesting that we don't care, and if you said something like that to me in person, I would be very tempted to feed you your teeth.
Of course, I wouldn't because I respect your right to say offensive ignorant things.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I'm really shocked to see a leftist thinking the only solution to every problem in the world is more laws and restrictions. I've never heard that one before.

z31maniac

As usual, all either side can do is scream NOTHING THE OTHER SIDE WANTS WILL WORK.


I will say I am curious about some reports I've seen that two officers were injured when they "engaged the suspect."

How exactly do you engage a suspect 1/4 of mile away 300'+ up with a handgun at night?

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

There needs to be a ban on country music and all the hate that it cultivates.

#boycottcountrymusic

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

back to Milo: Neo-**** Milo Yiannopoulos?s Black husband proves ?you can?t help whom you love? is white supremacist bullshit | AFROPUNK