Mass shooting thread

[King RyderFan]

 

 

 

Yes because privilege only pertains to that one specific aspect of your life personally lol

I never said it did. I was just saying that to write everyone off from the UK as "privileged" is pretty damn ignorant.

You are privileged if you can feel safe without a gun. It's not a luxury everybody has.

 

 

I still feel like everybody ignores the need for guns in the street just to feel safe. The cops aren't going to rush to "the hood" to help in many cases. A lot of people have to protect themselves. To say nobody needs a gun is just ignorant and shows that you come from a place of privilege.

I actually agree to a point. Most though are just those that either grew up in an entirely different culture and/or live in a place where they can't have them. The UK has heavy restrictions on most firearms so they wouldn't exactly understand the desire or need or even a real reason to have firearms like in America. But they don't have a 2nd amendment and that is kind of the point. It doesn't really matter if they don't understand. It doesn't really apply to them. Of course they have plenty of violence over there which has risen in the last couple of years including gun and knife murders and they all still think bats and rubber bullets will be sufficient enough for them.

 

When it comes down to it. It's easy for those that live in areas with heavy restrictions to not care about firearms. It's also easy for others in other countries to say that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right. Well for them it may be true but for Americans it isn't and they either don't get that or they can't stand it. For those that hate guns here just hate the fact it's a right and not Healthcare.

 

You also made a good point about the cops too. Funny that those that hated the cops a month ago only think cops and the government should have guns.

I think the conclusions I've come to were easier to reach with my background. My dad used to hunt; there was a gun case in the garage when I was growing up; did lots of target shooting/clay pigeon shooting when I was in the scouts as a kid, learned a lot about gun safety there; and have shot them for fun a time or two. I never felt that they were essential to my life personally. I could certainly live quite happily without them in my life. But I think my stance on this is pretty consistent to my general ideology and I genuinely think I'd come to the same conclusion if I grew up in the suburbs or something.

 

And yeah the idea of the militarized American police force being the only people with guns in the country sounds *censored*ing terrifying to me. People really don't think about the next step when they start talking about general bans.

 

Not really, most other countries have gun laws and loook at how few shootings they have. Just wondering, you planning to go shoot some police tomorrow? If not I don't see how only the police having access to guns is intimidating at all. Let's face it, the police and military will ALWAYS make sure they have access to better technology than the public has, no matter what country you visit.

[Mango kid]

The whole idea militarize police is a cop out excuse gun owners use to rationalize keeping guns

[M3J]

 

 

Yes because privilege only pertains to that one specific aspect of your life personally lol

I never said it did. I was just saying that to write everyone off from the UK as "privileged" is pretty damn ignorant.

 

 

You are privileged if you can feel safe without a gun. It's not a luxury everybody has.

 

I still feel like everybody ignores the need for guns in the street just to feel safe. The cops aren't going to rush to "the hood" to help in many cases. A lot of people have to protect themselves. To say nobody needs a gun is just ignorant and shows that you come from a place of privilege.

 

I actually agree to a point. Most though are just those that either grew up in an entirely different culture and/or live in a place where they can't have them. The UK has heavy restrictions on most firearms so they wouldn't exactly understand the desire or need or even a real reason to have firearms like in America. But they don't have a 2nd amendment and that is kind of the point. It doesn't really matter if they don't understand. It doesn't really apply to them. Of course they have plenty of violence over there which has risen in the last couple of years including gun and knife murders and they all still think bats and rubber bullets will be sufficient enough for them.

 

When it comes down to it. It's easy for those that live in areas with heavy restrictions to not care about firearms. It's also easy for others in other countries to say that gun ownership should be a privilege and not a right. Well for them it may be true but for Americans it isn't and they either don't get that or they can't stand it. For those that hate guns here just hate the fact it's a right and not Healthcare.

 

You also made a good point about the cops too. Funny that those that hated the cops a month ago only think cops and the government should have guns.

 

 

I think the conclusions I've come to were easier to reach with my background. My dad used to hunt; there was a gun case in the garage when I was growing up; did lots of target shooting/clay pigeon shooting when I was in the scouts as a kid, learned a lot about gun safety there; and have shot them for fun a time or two. I never felt that they were essential to my life personally. I could certainly live quite happily without them in my life. But I think my stance on this is pretty consistent to my general ideology and I genuinely think I'd come to the same conclusion if I grew up in the suburbs or something.

 

And yeah the idea of the militarized American police force being the only people with guns in the country sounds *censored*ing terrifying to me. People really don't think about the next step when they start talking about general bans.

 

 

 

That logic makes no sense though. Again, the military has better weapons, and the cops are more likely to be prepared to fight Americans with guns than Americans are against cops.

 

though, I actually wonder if parents with guns do even bother to teach their kids how to properly and responsibly use a gun. Feels like that'd be a major key in reducing kids accidentally setting off guns and possibly being better gun owners when they grow up. I don't know how lax gun control was back then over half a century ago, but I've seen kids holding/learning how to use guns.

[sam the d00d]

What I'm saying is you need to consider the future and before you call to take the guns away all together. Not just 5 years from now, but 100 or 200.

 

It's way easy for us to not see them as necessary, but some kid who fears of being jumped in the street on his way home probably feels differently.

[King RyderFan]

What I'm saying is you need to consider the future and before you call to take the guns away all together. Not just 5 years from now, but 100 or 200.

 

It's way easy for us to not see them as necessary, but some kid who fears of being jumped in the street on his way home probably feels differently.

So instead of being shot, that kid will be beaten up or stabbed instead? Those seem a bit better to me.

 

Just did a bit of research, apparantly the gun death rate here in the UK is around 1 death for every 1 million people per year. In country with a population of like 56 million, that works to around 56 people dying of gun crime every year here. The most notable recent one being MP Jo Cox.

[sam the d00d]

No, the kid shows what's on his waist and they scatter. Most people planning to jump somebody don't want to get into a gun fight.

[AONO.]

So give kids guns for protection? Nice.

[M3J]

What I'm saying is you need to consider the future and before you call to take the guns away all together. Not just 5 years from now, but 100 or 200.

 

It's way easy for us to not see them as necessary, but some kid who fears of being jumped in the street on his way home probably feels differently.

I'm not arguing for taking all guns away, just big guns like AR-15 and assault rifles. They're unnecessary.

 

No, the kid shows what's on his waist and they scatter. Most people planning to jump somebody don't want to get into a gun fight.

What if they have a gun though? what'd stop them from pulling their gun out and aiming it at the kid or shooting him? Scatter is guaranteed if the attackers know they have no advantage.

[Ziggy Vercetti]

My bad if noted already but the dude's brother got arrested for child porn

http://m.tmz.com/2017/10/25/vegas-shooter-stephen-paddocks-brother-arrested-child-porn-bruce-search-warrant/#!news/

[nWo_Kevin]

My bad if noted already but the dude's brother got arrested for child porn

http://m.tmz.com/2017/10/25/vegas-shooter-stephen-paddocks-brother-arrested-child-porn-bruce-search-warrant/#!news/

 

Heard about that. Not the same brother that we saw on the news though.

 

1 Brother goes on a shooting rampage, 1 brother is into child porn, and the final brother is normal (as far as we know). Something, somewhere, went wrong in that household.

[maskedmaniac]

If normal in that family means not killing anyone or being into child porn then yeah, something went very, very wrong.

[sam the d00d]

So give kids guns for protection? Nice.

Nobody's giving the kids guns for protection. They're getting them themselves to feel safe because the American police aren't out to protect them. You're being willfully ignorant.

[AONO.]

 

So give kids guns for protection? Nice.

Nobody's giving the kids guns for protection. They're getting them themselves to feel safe because the American police aren't out to protect them. You're being willfully ignorant.

 

Not at all.

 

Arming yourself is not fixing a damn thing. Killing a robber is not fixing a damn thing, it can only make things worse. But hell, everyones answer to the idea of fixing the reason why people feel like they need guns is just, "it can't be done" (read: too hard for me, or can't see reason because of either selfisheness or ignorance). You don't fix, a socio economical, educational and cultural problem by shooting people. That kind of thinking is yes, again, selfish and irresponsible to your familly and kids or future familly and kids. To say the least.

 

I've lived in all kinds of places, where I haven't felt safe at all. And i'd rather give someone my wallet than *censored*ing shoot him. And if the argument on that is "self respect" or some bs like that, than that only tells the story of persons intelligence and what kind of person he/she actually is. This is not only directed towards you, don't get me wrong. But when you hear or read (and I have) someone using that kind of "argumentation", you can't think that's being "realistic". It's being delusional and you need to grow the *Censored* up.

 

If you carry a knife, you better be prepared to use it, and even if you "know what you are doing", it can easily backfire and you can end up on the wrong side of it. Same with a gun. And there is definetly something very wrong with you if you would kill someone cold rather than give them their wallet.

 

Hell, for the sake of it... someone tries to rob you, you wanna play a cowboy and pull the gun out, you have no idea what the other person is capable of, he can either have one too, he can take it from you, his buddy may come at you from the back... what then?

 

Again it comes down to responsibility in general and not thinking about CONSEQUENCES. In every aspect of it.

 

EDIT: to clarify, cool... you want to keep your right to owning a gun. Ok, I disagree that it's NEEDED. But I'm against bullshit arguments.

[maskedmaniac]

The whole "bad guys are just gonna get guns anyways" argument is the weakest argument in the history of arguments. To not try to regulate guns in some way because some criminals are still going to get them is just counterproductive to our society. Imagine if the same logic was applied to other things like "oh people are still going to die in car accidents, so why make it mandatory to wear seatbelts" or "people are still going to die in earthquakes, so why make buildings be up to code", how about "kids are still going to open medicine bottles and eat the pills inside, so why make the bottles hard to open for everybody?". No progress would ever be made and more lives would be lost if we just gave up and tried absolutely nothing.

 

Extremely weak logic to not try something because a small percentage, nay, a fraction of a small percentage is still going to get their hands on guns anyways. To be honest the "bad guys" having guns aren't the ones that scare me, rather it's the "good" guys that are allowed to have a small arsenal of firearms because sooner or later good guys go bad, as we've seen many times with these so-called good people that wouldn't hurt a fly all of a sudden going on shooting sprees and killing dozens of people and no one ever suspects a thing or they are never even under surveillance with all those guns because they are such saintly good people...with dozens of firearms laying around.

[Mango kid]

So the brother of the guy was arrested for child porn

[M3J]

The whole "bad guys are just gonna get guns anyways" argument is the weakest argument in the history of arguments. To not try to regulate guns in some way because some criminals are still going to get them is just counterproductive to our society. Imagine if the same logic was applied to other things like "oh people are still going to die in car accidents, so why make it mandatory to wear seatbelts" or "people are still going to die in earthquakes, so why make buildings be up to code", how about "kids are still going to open medicine bottles and eat the pills inside, so why make the bottles hard to open for everybody?". No progress would ever be made and more lives would be lost if we just gave up and tried absolutely nothing.

 

Extremely weak logic to not try something because a small percentage, nay, a fraction of a small percentage is still going to get their hands on guns anyways. To be honest the "bad guys" having guns aren't the ones that scare me, rather it's the "good" guys that are allowed to have a small arsenal of firearms because sooner or later good guys go bad, as we've seen many times with these so-called good people that wouldn't hurt a fly all of a sudden going on shooting sprees and killing dozens of people and no one ever suspects a thing or they are never even under surveillance with all those guns because they are such saintly good people...with dozens of firearms laying around.

Guns help bad guys do bad things though, but if good guys have guns they can defend themselves, just as how seatbelts increase chances of survival or buildings being up to code prevent it from collapsing or taking too much damage.

 

and it's not absolutely nothing, it's banning guns bigger than pistols and making sure no one is able to get around it. I would say that's better than what we have now.

 

I mean, a presidential candidate even tweeted a picture of a gun with the caption, "America." Wanting to get rid of guns is good and all, but how are you going to convince the gun freaks who love their guns too much and don't care about lives?

[King RyderFan]

 

 

The whole "bad guys are just gonna get guns anyways" argument is the weakest argument in the history of arguments. To not try to regulate guns in some way because some criminals are still going to get them is just counterproductive to our society. Imagine if the same logic was applied to other things like "oh people are still going to die in car accidents, so why make it mandatory to wear seatbelts" or "people are still going to die in earthquakes, so why make buildings be up to code", how about "kids are still going to open medicine bottles and eat the pills inside, so why make the bottles hard to open for everybody?". No progress would ever be made and more lives would be lost if we just gave up and tried absolutely nothing.

 

Extremely weak logic to not try something because a small percentage, nay, a fraction of a small percentage is still going to get their hands on guns anyways. To be honest the "bad guys" having guns aren't the ones that scare me, rather it's the "good" guys that are allowed to have a small arsenal of firearms because sooner or later good guys go bad, as we've seen many times with these so-called good people that wouldn't hurt a fly all of a sudden going on shooting sprees and killing dozens of people and no one ever suspects a thing or they are never even under surveillance with all those guns because they are such saintly good people...with dozens of firearms laying around.

Guns help bad guys do bad things though, but if good guys have guns they can defend themselves, just as how seatbelts increase chances of survival or buildings being up to code prevent it from collapsing or taking too much damage.

 

and it's not absolutely nothing, it's banning guns bigger than pistols and making sure no one is able to get around it. I would say that's better than what we have now.

 

I mean, a presidential candidate even tweeted a picture of a gun with the caption, "America." Wanting to get rid of guns is good and all, but how are you going to convince the gun freaks who love their guns too much and don't care about lives?

And how do yoy know he isn't gonna pop a shot off as you're reaching for your gun, or that your gun isn't gonna somehow get turned on you? That next bit is so ridiculous I'm not going to go into it. You're comparing seatbelts and safety laws, two things meant to protect and save lives, to guns, something meant to do the exact opposite.

[M3J]

 

 

The whole "bad guys are just gonna get guns anyways" argument is the weakest argument in the history of arguments. To not try to regulate guns in some way because some criminals are still going to get them is just counterproductive to our society. Imagine if the same logic was applied to other things like "oh people are still going to die in car accidents, so why make it mandatory to wear seatbelts" or "people are still going to die in earthquakes, so why make buildings be up to code", how about "kids are still going to open medicine bottles and eat the pills inside, so why make the bottles hard to open for everybody?". No progress would ever be made and more lives would be lost if we just gave up and tried absolutely nothing.

 

Extremely weak logic to not try something because a small percentage, nay, a fraction of a small percentage is still going to get their hands on guns anyways. To be honest the "bad guys" having guns aren't the ones that scare me, rather it's the "good" guys that are allowed to have a small arsenal of firearms because sooner or later good guys go bad, as we've seen many times with these so-called good people that wouldn't hurt a fly all of a sudden going on shooting sprees and killing dozens of people and no one ever suspects a thing or they are never even under surveillance with all those guns because they are such saintly good people...with dozens of firearms laying around.

Guns help bad guys do bad things though, but if good guys have guns they can defend themselves, just as how seatbelts increase chances of survival or buildings being up to code prevent it from collapsing or taking too much damage.

 

and it's not absolutely nothing, it's banning guns bigger than pistols and making sure no one is able to get around it. I would say that's better than what we have now.

 

I mean, a presidential candidate even tweeted a picture of a gun with the caption, "America." Wanting to get rid of guns is good and all, but how are you going to convince the gun freaks who love their guns too much and don't care about lives?

And how do yoy know he isn't gonna pop a shot off as you're reaching for your gun, or that your gun isn't gonna somehow get turned on you? That next bit is so ridiculous I'm not going to go into it. You're comparing seatbelts and safety laws, two things meant to protect and save lives, to guns, something meant to do the exact opposite.

 

You don't. However, like I mentioned, a store owner and his employee was getting robbed at gunpoint, but he took out the robbers with his shotgun or something, which probably saved his employee's life as he was getting beaten up.

 

Are you reading the posts here? I'm not the one who brought up the comparisons, but guns can help protect and save lives too. Just so happens that it does that by hurting or killing others.

[King RyderFan]

 

 

 

 

The whole "bad guys are just gonna get guns anyways" argument is the weakest argument in the history of arguments. To not try to regulate guns in some way because some criminals are still going to get them is just counterproductive to our society. Imagine if the same logic was applied to other things like "oh people are still going to die in car accidents, so why make it mandatory to wear seatbelts" or "people are still going to die in earthquakes, so why make buildings be up to code", how about "kids are still going to open medicine bottles and eat the pills inside, so why make the bottles hard to open for everybody?". No progress would ever be made and more lives would be lost if we just gave up and tried absolutely nothing.

 

Extremely weak logic to not try something because a small percentage, nay, a fraction of a small percentage is still going to get their hands on guns anyways. To be honest the "bad guys" having guns aren't the ones that scare me, rather it's the "good" guys that are allowed to have a small arsenal of firearms because sooner or later good guys go bad, as we've seen many times with these so-called good people that wouldn't hurt a fly all of a sudden going on shooting sprees and killing dozens of people and no one ever suspects a thing or they are never even under surveillance with all those guns because they are such saintly good people...with dozens of firearms laying around.

Guns help bad guys do bad things though, but if good guys have guns they can defend themselves, just as how seatbelts increase chances of survival or buildings being up to code prevent it from collapsing or taking too much damage.

 

and it's not absolutely nothing, it's banning guns bigger than pistols and making sure no one is able to get around it. I would say that's better than what we have now.

 

I mean, a presidential candidate even tweeted a picture of a gun with the caption, "America." Wanting to get rid of guns is good and all, but how are you going to convince the gun freaks who love their guns too much and don't care about lives?

And how do yoy know he isn't gonna pop a shot off as you're reaching for your gun, or that your gun isn't gonna somehow get turned on you? That next bit is so ridiculous I'm not going to go into it. You're comparing seatbelts and safety laws, two things meant to protect and save lives, to guns, something meant to do the exact opposite.

You don't. However, like I mentioned, a store owner and his employee was getting robbed at gunpoint, but he took out the robbers with his shotgun or something, which probably saved his employee's life as he was getting beaten up.

 

Are you reading the posts here? I'm not the one who brought up the comparisons, but guns can help protect and save lives too. Just so happens that it does that by hurting or killing others.

So guns save lives by taking lives? Seems a bit counter productive.

[Mango kid]

Sometimes guns don't help to end a hostile situation but make it worst case in point in London when police fires hundreds of rounds into knife wielders. A lot of the cops bullets hit innocents and there train for thos situations

 

How a clivian do in the same situation how many people will he hit in a cross fire

[M3J]

It makes sense if you think about it. If a huge-ass animal attacks a group, what would you prefer? Ending one life to save six lives by shooting the animal or seeing multiple lives be lost because none of you had a gun? If someone illegally owned a gun and was trying to rob you and his accomplice was beating up your employees to death, wouldn't you rather have a gun hidden somewhere that you can pull out?

[Mango kid]

I dont think it that it the fact ur average person is,not train to,deal with someone shooting back,at you

[M3J]

the logic that guns can help prevent or stop mass shooting is pretty dumb as *Censored*, I agree. Especially during the tragedy in Vegas. no one knew where the bullets were coming from, as far as I know, so the best case scenario they'd all have their guns own and start looking. Some might have itchy trigger finger or assume incorrectly and start shooting, which could set off a chain reaction.

 

Like, having a group of gun owners in one area is pretty uncomfortable, given all things. I don't know why gun lovers are so insistent on allowing guns at games given the violence that goes on after a team wins/loses. Even women haven't been spared from getting into fights, and the last thing we need is an angry football fan shooting a rival team fan.

[Bdon]

the logic that guns can help prevent or stop mass shooting is pretty dumb as *Censored*, I agree. Especially during the tragedy in Vegas. no one knew where the bullets were coming from, as far as I know, so the best case scenario they'd all have their guns own and start looking. Some might have itchy trigger finger or assume incorrectly and start shooting, which could set off a chain reaction.

 

Like, having a group of gun owners in one area is pretty uncomfortable, given all things. I don't know why gun lovers are so insistent on allowing guns at games given the violence that goes on after a team wins/loses. Even women haven't been spared from getting into fights, and the last thing we need is an angry football fan shooting a rival team fan.

That is probably the dumbest, most asinine thing I've heard you say. This isn't the naked gun movies.

 

Also that is literally worse case scenario that has little to no chance of actually going down. You're pushing it as more likely than it is.

 

[M3J]

Yes, because gun owners can be trusted to make logical choices, right? Because none of them have been trigger happy. Get past your hardon for guns, you're far too blind. But then again, there's no use reasoning with you, you lack the common sense or knowledge. There really is no reason to believe fans won't start pulling out guns when they're all too ready to get into arguments and fistfights.