Citizens with guns

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Also take heart violence is going down in most first world nations every year and that is a good thing.

And the United States of America, the self-appointed greatest nation in the world, the so-called leader of the free world, is the only first world nation where there are, regularly, massacres at schools, churches, movie theatres, night clubs, etc. Why is that? Why do we stand alone in being a country where a madman or madmen can arm themselves like commandos and kill people who were just minding their business/attending school/enjoying themselves with friends?

This guy had been investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties before. He was cleared, sure, but the people who sold him the assault rifle and pistol he used in the massacre didn't even have access to that information. Do you really believe that is how things should be? Do you really support the NRA in its cultish obsession with making sure that there are absolutely no restrictions on guns whatsoever, even for people who are mentally ill/known terrorists/have histories of violent behaviour?

I still stand by what I said. If someone kills me in a mass shooting, I hope people don't come up with excuses to stick a thumb up their arse and do nothing about it. I hope people act. Though, given that we've adamantly refused to act after schoolchildren were massacred and a sitting Congresswoman was shot in the head, I'm almost certain that will never, ever happen. But I might come back to haunt you as a ghost anyways.

Adi did guns not being used stop Boston? Did gun laws and being on the terror watch lists stop Paris? I believe that better mental health reporting, more refined and streamlined sharing of information between LEO agencies is most definitely needed. However its proven that banning these things does not stop this thing from happening. What I am saying is that caution, logic, and an eye towards abuse of the law and respect for liberty should be what we keep in mind. You are totally ok with feeling how you do and I get why you and others feel that way. But feelings should not dictate the liberties of good people and we must remember that laws do not prevent crime they only allow us to punish it.

MadHatter wrote: Adi did guns not being used stop Boston? Did gun laws and being on the terror watch lists stop Paris?

Boston was a bombing. We don't have those several times a year, do we? Before that, when was the last time we had a successful terrorist bombing in the United States? The shoebomber and underpants bomber got foiled.

Paris was in another country, and comparing our mass shooting epidemic to a highly coordinated, basically unprecedented terrorist attack in a European capital (which probably would've played out the same in the states, assuming the same intelligence failings, but that's another story) is apples to oranges. I can only speak for our country, which has 4.4% of the world's population but half of the world's non-civilian firearms (approx. 270 million guns registered, total.) Can you answer my questions now?

Do you really believe [gun sellers not being required to make background checks and in most jurisdictions being unable to do so] is how things should be? Do you really support the NRA in its cultish obsession with making sure that there are absolutely no restrictions on guns whatsoever, even for people who are mentally ill/known terrorists/have histories of violent behaviour?

Also: please do not trivialize what I believe as simple "feelings," as if they were fleeting and arrived at without thought. They are firm convictions that I have held for a very long time. That's just disrespectful. I disagree with what you say. I think in believing what you do, you (along with millions of others) have blood on your hands. But I am not about to call your convictions simple "feelings."

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Adi did guns not being used stop Boston? Did gun laws and being on the terror watch lists stop Paris?

Boston was a bombing. We don't have those several times a year, do we? Before that, when was the last time we had a successful terrorist bombing in the United States? The shoebomber and underpants bomber got foiled.

Paris was in another country, and comparing our mass shooting epidemic to a highly coordinated, basically unprecedented terrorist attack in a European capital (which probably would've played out the same in the states, assuming the same intelligence failings, but that's another story) is apples to oranges. I can only speak for our country, which has 4.4% of the world's population but half of the world's non-civilian firearms (approx. 270 million guns registered, total.) Can you answer my questions now?

Do you really believe [gun sellers not being required to make background checks and in most jurisdictions being unable to do so] is how things should be? Do you really support the NRA in its cultish obsession with making sure that there are absolutely no restrictions on guns whatsoever, even for people who are mentally ill/known terrorists/have histories of violent behaviour?

Also: please do not trivialize what I believe as simple "feelings," as if they were fleeting and arrived at without thought. They are firm convictions.

My point was that mass killings WILL happen because people with ill intent wish them too. Laws and a lack of firearms do not seem to stop these things either. Gun sellers not being required to preform a background check? False if they have an FFL they MUST preform a background check. There are federal and state bans on those judged mentally ill and with violent felonies on their records from owning or buying guns. Do I agree with them? I am unsure in some areas as if you are deemed fit to be a free man then I question restriction of liberties. So I dont know there. However what I do know is that the system is failing to document some of these people and courts are so tied up with other BS that they do not get trials that would get some of this properly on record and a fair chance to defend your rights in court. So in essence I sort of agree with you I am just untrusting of this not being abused.

MadHatter wrote: My point was that mass killings WILL happen because people with ill intent wish them too. Laws and a lack of firearms do not seem to stop these things either.

Why do countries with strong firearms regulations not have an epidemic of mass shootings like we do? Are mass shootings completely unprecedented in the rest of the western world? No. The horrible mass shooting in Norway by a far-right extremist is an example (though, again, I think that's another case where things would not have been very different in the U.S., given similar circumstances.) But Norway, for instance, has not had one since then, and does not have mass shootings like we do every few months. Neither does the United Kingdom. Or Japan.

It's literally just us. Other nations that have stronger gun regulations simply do not have mass shooting epidemics like we do. That flies in the face of what you say, that "laws and a lack of firearms" will not stop these things. When the Australian government launched a gun buyback programme in the 1990s, homicide and suicide rates of all types decreased . By the sounds of things, that worked out pretty well. The thing is, I'm not opposed to gun ownership, but I think the Cult of the Gun we have in the United States is absolute madness. We have had people saying "let's be cautious about this" since Sandy Hook, and what good has it done us? Talk is cheap, and this "talk" we are engaged with as a society and a nation is costing innocent people their lives.

No-one is suggesting it can be stopped outright... human history is replete with violence enhanced with weapons, and will continue to be.

The thing is offenders will always seek greater advantage, whether it be more firepower then what they will expect to face or tactical advantage such as timing, positioning, movement, to enable surprise etc.

If people in the club had handguns, then he'd bring an assault rifle or explosives.... because yes, people intent on violence will still find a way.

So I don't think mass murder events justify the pro-gun argument universally because of various other factors. Lines have to be drawn somewhere about what level of capability can be accessed legally and under what conditions. Each country will have its own position on it. Otherwise we'll all just keep up arming ourselves to chase the latest threat - which is called an arms race.... so lines need to be drawn somewhere I think.

Adi to a degree you are correct. I get your feelings I do even if I do not agree with where your feelings lead. I respect your right to them and really hope that we can do something to help prevent these sorts of things. However as I have stated each year firearms deaths and violent crime (except for non weapons based assults oddly) have gone down for almost a decade here in the US. On the flip side guns have been sold in record numbers. It is a complex issue that we likely will not agree on. Each person has a right to their own views and I respect yours.

Adder I agree. Though I will say that my level of ok will likely differ from many peoples. I am ok with people not wanting firearms what I am not ok with is people saying because they dont want them and someone might do something bad means I should not own them. I do not trust my defense to other people nor do I feel I should ever have to. But again these are all one persons opinions. I get why people feel how they do and trust me I do not begrudge them that. I simply dont like when feelings are used to take away the liberties I have sacrificed six years of my life to protect and far far better men then me have died to grant us.

Adi wrote: This guy had been investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties before. He was cleared, sure, but the people who sold him the assault rifle and pistol he used in the massacre didn't even have access to that information. Do you really believe that is how things should be? Do you really support the NRA in its cultish obsession with making sure that there are absolutely no restrictions on guns whatsoever, even for people who are mentally ill/known terrorists/have histories of violent behaviour?

He was cleared- not even a reputable gun shop would have ended up finding all of this out. It's also pointed out that it's not hard to reproduce your own gun or bullets if you put your mind to it. If people want to kill, they are gonna kill. This could have easily been done using an explosive device.

MadHatter wrote: Adi to a degree you are correct. I get your feelings I do even if I do not agree with where your feelings lead.

Son, calling my convictions "feelings" is patronizing as f*ck. Come on. I asked you once already. At least respect my convictions for what they are. Would you believe that beneath my self-loathing immigrant exterior I secretly have stupid amounts of patriotism for the United States and firmly believe in the vision of "liberty and justice for all" we're supposed to, in theory, have as a nation? I'm not some uppity foreigner here to take away your rights.

I'm also not some overly emotional person who is angry about this because of their "feelings." I have been angry about this since Columbine, since I was afraid to go to school for fear of a mass shooting. I have been against the Cult of the Gun literally since I first began to form my own political views in the first place. We're getting off-topic here, but this pattern of disrespect is really common among people who have beliefs like yours, and I really thought you were above that.

Alethea Thompson wrote: He was cleared- not even a reputable gun shop would have ended up finding all of this out. It's also pointed out that it's not hard to reproduce your own gun or bullets if you put your mind to it. If people want to kill, they are gonna kill. This could have easily been done using an explosive device.

Re: him being cleared - yeah, I said that. And you're right, no reputable gun shop would have been able to find this out, because they're not able to have that information at their disposal. But uh, just out of curiosity: how many mass shootings have been committed using 100% homemade weapons?

Adi wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Adi to a degree you are correct. I get your feelings I do even if I do not agree with where your feelings lead.

Son, calling my convictions "feelings" is patronizing as f*ck. Come on. I asked you once already. At least respect my convictions for what they are. Would you believe that beneath my self-loathing immigrant exterior I secretly have stupid amounts of patriotism for the United States and firmly believe in the vision of "liberty and justice for all" we're supposed to, in theory, have as a nation? I'm not some uppity foreigner here to take away your rights.

I'm also not some overly emotional person who is angry about this because of their "feelings." I have been angry about this since Columbine, since I was afraid to go to school for fear of a mass shooting. I have been against the Cult of the Gun literally since I first began to form my own political views in the first place. We're getting off-topic here, but this pattern of disrespect is really common among people who have beliefs like yours, and I really thought you were above that.

Ok you know what I was trying to be nice here. Just because I didnt call it convictions but rather feelings does not mean I "disrespected " you. Frankly I didnt want to argue with you because I get why you view things as you do and respect that. That was the point I was trying to get across. I was nothing but nice in this conversation and tried every step of the way to state that I respected your views even if I disagreed. I am done arguing because I respect you as a person and have no desire to come off as feeling any other way.

MadHatter wrote: Ok you know what I was trying to be nice here. Just because I didnt call it convictions but rather feelings does not mean I "disrespected " you. Frankly I didnt want to argue with you because I get why you view things as you do and respect that. That was the point I was trying to get across. I was nothing but nice in this conversation and tried every step of the way to state that I respected your views even if I disagreed. I am done arguing because I respect you as a person and have no desire to come off as feeling any other way.

You failed at "trying to be nice." Sorry, but that's just what happened. Feelings and convictions are not the same or even on the same level, and trying to conflate the two implies that I don't put thought or reason or logic into what I firmly believe. Because after all, if my firm beliefs are just "feelings," they probably don't have much of those three, do they?

My feeling right now is that I really like classical music. My feeling six months ago was that I was into vaporwave (yeah, I know...) in a big way. My feeling in three months will probably be that I'm back to liking hipster indie music.

My convictions are things like the conviction that everyone has a right to the ability to live without having their head blown off while they're, for instance, sitting in an elementary school classroom. My feelings change. My convictions generally do not.

It's a minor quibble, yes, but I am absolutely going to hold you accountable on it. Sorry, but I can't do things any other way.