# Las Vegas Shooting



## brickmii82 (Oct 2, 2017)

Reports are stating that at least 50 are dead and 400 people are injured in a shooting that occurred last night in Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Las Vegas shooting: What we know about what happened at Mandalay Bay - USA TODAY
https://apple.news/AI97z2yQ0Qmem8BoI9WZGiQ


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 2, 2017)

The thing is we don't even know why the guy did it yet. It's so screwed up.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Oct 2, 2017)

don't worry guys, i have this everyday where i live, with time you will get used to it : )


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 2, 2017)

last i heard the injured were about 200, though that might just refer to people who were hit by a bullet, since many must've been hurt in the ensuing panic.

with 50 dead, this should now be the mass shooting with the highest casualty count in us history, which might still rise.

the one who did it was a white male in his 50s or 60s, his motivation will likely remain unclear as he was shot dead quickly, but looking into his living situation might reveal something.
it might be everything from political affiliation to mental issues or even some manner of ptsd/drugrelated freakout. someone might've even paid him/his family to do it. who knows.

bottomline, once more a tragedy caused most likely by easy access to all types of weaponry :/
chances are slim that weapon laws will change though. my condolences for both the surviving families and the future gun victims


----------



## Monty Kensicle (Oct 2, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> last i heard the injured were about 200, though that might just refer to people who were hit by a bullet, since many must've been hurt in the ensuing panic.
> 
> with 50 dead, this should now be the mass shooting with the highest casualty count in us history, which might still rise.
> 
> ...


But what if they were stricter and he just decided to plow a van into people instead?


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 2, 2017)

He hoping to surpass Anders Breivik?

I heard bits of it.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 2, 2017)

Monty Kensicle said:


> But what if they were stricter and he just decided to plow a van into people instead?



considering he chose to kill people from a hotelwindow far far away, he most likely wouldn't have had the stomach to go for something like that.

guns give you distance, you dont need to see people bleeding, and gore, hear the begging and dying, from some distance, like a few steps away, they seem an almost surgically clean way to dispose of people. which is one of the many reasons why distance weapons have always revolutionized warfare, because they've always allowed the squeamish to kill effectively too.

also, the success in reducing overall murder by restricting access to guns in other countries kinda speaks for itself.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2017)

What the hell is wrong with these pussy snipers? "Oh I'm just gonna shoot myself so I don't get caught by the SWAT teams". I'm not sorry for using that word, because that's all these damn filthy snipers are, cowards, cowards who deserve to burn in the depths of hell. That just...makes me want to throw up 


And why the hell are people liking the OP post? People like the idea of people being killed in cold blood?


----------



## Pacheko17 (Oct 2, 2017)

ISIS is claiming responsibility.
And why were there 2 broken windows? 
Welcome to another episode of mass murder theory.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> ISIS is claiming responsibility.
> And why were there 2 broken windows?
> Welcome to another episode of mass murder theory.



ISIS can go f*ck itself if they are responsible.


----------



## Cyan (Oct 2, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And why the hell are people liking the OP post? People like the idea of people being killed in cold blood?


Maybe it's for letting people know about it, more than liking people dying.
(well, I hope it is)

I rarely look for information on other places than gbatemp. Sometime I learn non-gaming related news only here.
this time, I've heard about it at my work, people where talking about it as it's big enough for a lot of people to spread that news.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2017)

Cyan said:


> Maybe it's for letting people know about it, more than liking people dying.
> (well, I hope it is)
> 
> I rarely look for information on other places than gbatemp. Sometime I learn news only here.
> this time, I've heard about it at my work, people where talking about it as it's big enough for a lot of people to spread that news.



Just woke up so I'm not thinking straight, sorry.


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 2, 2017)

How in the world did the guy get guns into the hotel? That's what's circling the mind a lot, as well as a somber sense of dread and sympathy.


----------



## Aletron9000 (Oct 2, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> How in the world did the guy get guns into the hotel? That's what's circling the mind a lot, as well as a somber sense of dread and sympathy.



some hotels only check a couple bags, maybe his wasn't checked


----------



## Cyan (Oct 2, 2017)

@the_randomize, I didn't tell it in a bad way, just wanted to reply to your question as it's something a lot of people could wonder, why people like comments even when there's nothing enjoyable in it.
I hope it's just "thanks for letting us know, and talk about it". but, each his own I guess.


I think one of our moderator is from Las Vegas.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 2, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> last i heard the injured were about 200, though that might just refer to people who were hit by a bullet, since many must've been hurt in the ensuing panic.
> 
> with 50 dead, this should now be the mass shooting with the highest casualty count in us history, which might still rise.
> 
> ...


I'm willing to wager the weapon used was either stolen or bought  illegitimately. You could ban every gun in the US, or enforce some sort of strict registration process, but there are already so many in circulation, obtaining one would be trivial. Not to mention smuggling more from Mexico.

If the war on drugs has done nothing but needlessly increase the prison population while drug use rises and more and more research chems (most of them more dangerous than what was already banned) are created to get through loopholes, then banning guns is not going to stop violent crimes at an acceptable level.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2017)

Banning/outlawing firearms will only make them more desirable and illicitly obtainable. I'm all for responsible and legal gun ownership, it's these damn cowards that make it hard to do so legally. The fact he got away with it and was never punished makes me sick.


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 2, 2017)

Aletron9000 said:


> some hotels only check a couple bags, maybe his wasn't checked



Things like that just make me play Captain Hindsight from South Park. Why don't hotels check everyone and their bags? I don't know much about gun purchasing, but shouldn't there be a history, a log of gun purchases for each person? That he bought a lot indicates a possible motivation of violence. As for the ISIS thing, I don't know, could be them just lying for boastful purposes. Rather than respond to that first and seriously, there should be something done domestically about gun control, background checks, something, it's ridiculous. For Trump, this being the worst mass shooting in US history, under his presidency, he better do his damnedest to lower the chances of this happening again, and not skirt around this like he has under the guise of some minor thing in comparison, such as the NFL players protesting. 

Ugh, I hate thinking about these things, so for now, just focus more on the victims and being really sympathetic towards them.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 2, 2017)

I have family in Vegas. My cousin was at a concert at the Excalibur when it happened....


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 2, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> last i heard the injured were about 200, though that might just refer to people who were hit by a bullet, since many must've been hurt in the ensuing panic.
> 
> with 50 dead, this should now be the mass shooting with the highest casualty count in us history, which might still rise.
> 
> ...



That statement is so far beyond bullshit its not even funny.

When things like this happen.. For whatever reason gun control is blamed.

The question is not "how did he get the guns?"

It's "how did he get all of them, and the ammo up to the 32nd floor of a hotel and casino?"


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Oct 2, 2017)

58 dead and hundreds injured as of last update. just read about this.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 2, 2017)

All we can do is citizens is stand united in solidarity, and do our part.


----------



## Enkuler (Oct 2, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> All we can do is citizens is stand united in solidarity, and do our part.


instructions unclear, got my vita stuck up my ass


----------



## Byokugen (Oct 2, 2017)

Jesus fucking christ... top news here was that our president is waiting for MiG airplanes to arive... 
I'm sorry residents of the US, most of you deserve normal life... jesus....


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 2, 2017)

eh. Who needs strict weapon laws amirite


----------



## leon315 (Oct 2, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> He hoping to surpass Anders Breivik?
> 
> I heard bits of it.


just checked that terrorist on wikipedia, according to wiki the only responsible was only sentenced 21 years of prison wtf??


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 2, 2017)

leon315 said:


> just checked that terrorist on wikipedia, according to wiki the only responsible was only sentenced 21 years of prison wtf??



Not just 21 years, read it again.
Also, 21 years is the max sentence in Norway.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2017)

>woke up early, still dark out
>grabs a mtndew and looks at news
20 ppl dead and 100 ppl injured
>drinks some mtndew
50 ppl dead and 200 ppl injured
>finishes mtn dew
>gos to school
>sees this
50 ppl dead and 400 ppl injured
...
stop doubling!


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 2, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> eh. Who needs strict weapon laws amirite



Such as? We've already got a ton of weapons laws in the USA. Dollars to donuts this guy broke many of them before the shooting started. Making something illegal doesn't stop it, or there'd be no murders, burglaries, drugs, rape, etc. What people are capable of doing, someone will do. Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building and killed 168 people with cowshit.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 2, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Such as? We've already got a ton of weapons laws in the USA. Dollars to donuts this guy broke many of them before the shooting started. Making something illegal doesn't stop it, or there'd be no murders, burglaries, drugs, rape, etc. What people are capable of doing, someone will do. Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building and killed 168 people with cowshit.


Buying weapons in Nevada is extremely simple. You don't need a permit. 
If acquiring a gun is so simple... It's no wonder this happens.


----------



## Kawaii (Oct 3, 2017)

my condolence to those involved.

Las Vegas shooting: America reels as 'lone wolf' gunman leaves scores dead and hundreds injured

Why is this guy a lone wolf though not a terrorist?


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 3, 2017)

Kawaii said:


> my condolence to those involved.
> 
> Las Vegas shooting: America reels as 'lone wolf' gunman leaves scores dead and hundreds injured
> 
> Why is this guy a lone wolf though not a terrorist?


Because there was no motive behind the attack, he wasnt part of a terror group, not part a political group
just nothing


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 3, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> Buying weapons in Nevada is extremely simple. You don't need a permit.
> If acquiring a gun is so simple... It's no wonder this happens.



Making it harder to obtain a firearm won't stop criminals from illegally circumventing gun laws.


----------



## Kawaii (Oct 3, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> Because there was no motive behind the attack, he wasnt part of a terror group, not part a political group
> just nothing



Fascinating. where did u get the idea the mass murdering has no motive?
what justify motivation of mass murder in one group versus another.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

Kawaii said:


> Fascinating. where did u get the idea the mass murdering has no motive?
> what justify motivation of mass murder in one group versus another.


It's specifically terrorism when the motive is for political aims. We don't know anything about the shooter's motive at this time, he was mentally deranged for all we know. Therefore, we cannot call it terrorism yet.


----------



## Kawaii (Oct 3, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> It's specifically terrorism when the motive is for political aims. We don't know anything about the shooter's motive at this time, he was mentally deranged for all we know. Therefore, we cannot call it terrorism yet.



Are 'mentally derange' people exclusive for whites though? I mean i never heard 'lone wolf', 'mentally derange' when mass murdering involved in the other party. It doesn't even need investigation, headline will just automatically shows terrorism.
If so terrorism is an act when motive is for political aims, isn't invasion and oppression of one country to another is a terrorist act itself. Its hugely political when it involves a nation.

There's a huge biased and stereotype which many fail to see.


----------



## hobbledehoy899 (Oct 3, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> eh. Who needs strict weapon laws amirite


Stricter laws wouldn't have done shit, fully automatic guns are already illegal.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

Memoir said:


> That statement is so far beyond bullshit its not even funny.
> 
> When things like this happen.. For whatever reason gun control is blamed.
> 
> ...


Another good question would be "why the hell did he have 10 automated rifles, two bipods, enough ammo to do the damage he did and a house full of explosives in the first place?"


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 3, 2017)

hobbledehoy899 said:


> Stricter laws wouldn't have done shit, fully automatic guns are already illegal.



Gun laws only stop law-abiding citizens, criminals don't care about laws; no amount of gun control will prevent pusillanimous criminals from getting them.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

Kawaii said:


> Are 'mentally derange' people exclusive for whites though? I mean i never heard 'lone wolf', 'mentally derange' when mass murdering involved in the other party. It doesn't even need investigation, headline will just automatically shows terrorism.
> If so terrorism is an act when motive is for political aims, isn't invasion and oppression of one country to another is a terrorist act itself. Its hugely political when it involves a nation.
> 
> There's a huge biased and stereotype which many fail to see.


I've heard "lone wolf" used plenty of times. The person behind Sandy Hook was mentally deranged. That's not a rare term, either. I guess you consume a different media diet. This isn't about skin color, we're talking definitions. Not every shooting is a terrorist act. Often times when a mass shooting like this occurs, ISIS or another group claims responsibility and there is a clear link between the shooter and ISIS, or at least a hint of radicalization. Because that happens so often in today's world, the gut instinct when hearing about mass shootings is to consider them terrorism. In the case of Las Vegas, the shooter had no ties to terrorist groups whatsoever, so no one can assume terrorism at this time. However, you can bet that many people's first instinct upon hearing this news was, "Oh no, another terrorist attack!" Meanwhile, look at what happened in Charlottesville a while back. Remember the guy with the car? I would totally call that terrorism, because he ran over people who opposed his political views.

A lone wolf is someone who acts of his own volition. A terrorist acts on behalf of another's volition or in representation of a political view/faction/etc. They're not "lone wolves" because they have a group or identity they back. Someone who is "mentally deranged" has some kind of mental issue that influences their decision to commit a vile act. Terrorists could absolutely be mentally deranged, however the term is often used when non-terrorist shootings occur. I'm surprised you've never heard of mental insanity being used to describe murderers. It's brought up against nearly every shooter.

And yes, invasion and oppression of another country is often called out as terrorism. You're not wrong. However, I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion around the Las Vegas shooting?


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 3, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> All we can do is citizens is stand united in solidarity, and do our part.


We can do a lot more than that. We can donate to the families to help cover funeral costs, we can donate blood to help the survivors, and really any other form of donation to help out. We don't have to sit idly by, we can help to the best of our ability. I am not saying those who can only stand should be shamed, but I am saying that there's still more that can be done.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 3, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> We can do a lot more than that. We can donate to the families to help cover funeral costs, we can donate blood to help the survivors, and really any other form of donation to help out. We don't have to sit idly by, we can help to the best of our ability. I am not saying those who can only stand should be shamed, but I am saying that there's still more that can be done.



My apologies, that...wasn't my intent by what I said  Sorry


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 3, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> My apologies, that...wasn't my intent by what I said  Sorry


It’s cool, I just wanted to chime in with some suggestions. Don’t take it personally.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 3, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It’s cool, I just wanted to chime in with some suggestions. Don’t take it personally.



It's been..hard lately.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 3, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> It's been..hard lately.


This is hard on everyone. I suggest you really consider taking a small break if it’s gotten you this beaten up


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 3, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> This is hard on everyone. I suggest you really consider taking a small break if it’s gotten you this beaten up



Not just this, but other things.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2017)

After a day of reading about this unfortunate and tragic event, I'm inclined to believe that the shooter was coerced into this. Identified as Stephen Paddock, the shooters motive has yet to be revealed.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/shooters-brother-we-have-no-idea-how-this-happened/

He has no criminal history, no history of mental illness, no incidents of violence within his family, and no apparent political or religious affiliations. Something doesn't sit right here.
Reports state that he retired into a life of high stakes gambling. He was a bit reclusive, and not known for violence or angry outbursts.

What if he was threatened into this? What if he was a fall guy left as a body to cover up the actual perpetrator?

We certainly ask questions, but are we asking the ones that we've been told to ask? Or are we asking the ones that involve critical thinking and thoughts outside the box?


----------



## ganons (Oct 3, 2017)

Its quite simple really, he's not Muslim so he's either a lone wolf or has mental issues. Always some kind of excuse for a white killer.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2017)

"Lone wolf"...."Mental issues"

Again, these are what we've been fed. Yet the facts acquired thus far don't add up to either without an outside element being involved.


----------



## keven3477 (Oct 3, 2017)

Did anyone know what happened to the suspects wife, last I heard she was in another country and the police had the general are of her location.



brickmii82 said:


> After a day of reading about this unfortunate and tragic event, I'm inclined to believe that the shooter was coerced into this. Identified as Stephen Paddock, the shooters motive has yet to be revealed.
> 
> https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/shooters-brother-we-have-no-idea-how-this-happened/
> 
> ...



I was also lightly theorizing something like that, I did find it weird that the suspect was dead before the police arrived and why was he blindfolded while shooting (heard he was blindfolded from a news)


----------



## Gizametalman (Oct 3, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> ISIS is claiming responsibility.
> And why were there 2 broken windows?
> Welcome to another episode of mass murder theory.



Pff...if any given country/place in the world suddenly had a Diarrhea Epidemy, ISIS would even dare to claim that as their actions. ISIS only wants you to have fear, so they will say whatever and use whichever scenario possible to give you fear.


My Comment:
That said, in USA even a fucking child can get a fucking machinegun. And honestly? Americans aren't that peaceful nor mentally stable as anyone thinks. Otherwise you wouldn't have the same exact scenario in schools all over the country.
I don't care if this offends you, but the truth is that, acquiring guns in USA is as easy as acquiring Bubble gun, I mean, Bubble Gum.
Not happy for what it happened, but C'mon, is not that hard to understand "WHY" a coward had GUNS in the first place, and "WHY" the fucking hotel didn't revised his packs or whatever he used to carry them.
And even "HOW" he had access to them in the first place.


----------



## DarthDub (Oct 3, 2017)

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10...ter-is-complete-nonsense-stephen-paddock.html

There's no way in hell that this was done by one person alone.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Oct 3, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> don't worry guys, i have this everyday where i live, with time you will get used to it : )


is brazil still so corrupt ?

i believe this is because of the poverty nay ?
it isnt just brazil though, i cant remember how damn long it was when i was reading/watching stuff about south america and the corruption there.
there's quite a lot of south american countries which have very high crime rates etc.

hope things settle down there someday.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 3, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Making it harder to obtain a firearm won't stop criminals from illegally circumventing gun laws.


Of course laws won't stop anyone. That's why these are so common in the US /s


----------



## keven3477 (Oct 3, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10...ter-is-complete-nonsense-stephen-paddock.html
> 
> There's no way in hell that this was done by one person alone.



I just noticed it, in the video you can hear 2 rounds of gunshots happening together after one of them starts shooting, when one starts shooting the other one starts as well.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10...ter-is-complete-nonsense-stephen-paddock.html
> 
> There's no way in hell that this was done by one person alone.



This was posted as a comment to that article:
01) Paddock was a rich investor who, by other reports, was an accountant. Afterall his home was worth $400 000 and supposedly had another place in Reno. This is enough to fund weapons purchases. As for the solo-shooter concern, who knows, maybe the other one slipped away since it took 1 hour and 10 minutes to leave but all the evidence released corroborates a single shooter all doubts aside. He had the room since September 28th and even 8-hour days makes this operation setup not nearly as time sensitive as you doubt.
02) Psychopaths have often enough done murder-suicide, especially in cases of vengeance rather than spur of the moment. Police have confirmed he shot himself after they breached the door to his room.
03) AR-15s don't always have muzzle flashes and if he had a custom, modified or enhanced break on the end, it wouldn't matter.
04) Echo and reverb. This with the fact that cellphone microphones are not as high quality when it comes to filtering distant noise.
05) ISIS claims a lot of things. Will you post a new piece when this is confirmed or denied outright?
06) His brother isn't a viable confirmant, he contradicts himself in the interview. One doesn't need a military background to purchase weapons. His weapons have so far been confirmed by the LVPD as modified meaning they are semi-automatic and made to function differently such as at an increased rate of fire.
07) Trigger modifications, tripods and a scope. This has been confirmed by a few police sources.
08) See #1.
09) Perfect way to slip unnoticed. We do this with spies but then you might think that supports your statement; it does not, at least not more than my own. No known affiliation does not mean any affiliation is absent. In addition no actual affiliation doesn't mean a human cannot do this on their own.
10) I've known some quite capable senior citizens when it comes to firearms and so because you scoff and laugh you think it's unreasonable. This is inexperience and ignorance on your part.
11) Political games.

The numbers in the comment correspond with the numbers on the article. Things to think about. I think he absolutely could've done it alone. Also, the article uses some quite shaky lines of logic, and I wouldn't trust that website with an objective opinion anyday. Not really into conspiracy theories because most of them just prey on paranoia. Let's wait for the facts to come out, shall we?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



keven3477 said:


> I just noticed it, in the video you can hear 2 rounds of gunshots happening together after one of them starts shooting, when one starts shooting the other one starts as well.


Since they follow quite closely, it could be reverb as well as bullets hitting the ground. I read some interviews with people who were there and a couple do describe bullets hitting the ground. Reverb + bad smartphone mics + shots bouncing off the ground can easily create the illusion that there was more than one stream of bullets. I don't have a definitive answer, but do consider that before we all drift off into conspiracyland.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 3, 2017)

Breaks 19 laws but 20 laws would have total stopped him dead in his tracks.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Oct 3, 2017)

leonmagnus99 said:


> is brazil still so corrupt ?


HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH XD lmao
that made me laugh, do you really think something could get better in this end world country? XD HAHAHAHA


----------



## CannonFoddr (Oct 3, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> The thing is we don't even know why the guy did it yet. It's so screwed up.


I bet the newspapers will blame FPS shooters as a cause - they always do


----------



## GensokyoIceFairy (Oct 3, 2017)

CannonFoddr said:


> I bet the newspapers will blame FPS shooters as a cause - they always do


Really? It's been quite a while since I last saw anything with the 'video games = violence' bullshit in the news, that said I don't check the news often.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 3, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> Reports are stating that at least 50 are dead and 400 people are injured in a shooting that occurred last night in Las Vegas, NV, USA.
> 
> Las Vegas shooting: What we know about what happened at Mandalay Bay - USA TODAY
> https://apple.news/AI97z2yQ0Qmem8BoI9WZGiQ



Very sad and its horrible. However, I except that because the future is continue like that. There will be more shooting and murdering and bombing and everywhere are gone berserk. NO LOVE AND NO PEACE EVER!


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 3, 2017)

azoreseuropa said:


> Very sad and its horrible. However, I except that because the future is continue like that. There will be more shooting and murdering and bombing and everywhere are gone berserk. NO LOVE AND NO PEACE EVER!



Welcome to humanity.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 3, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Welcome to humanity.



Precisely!


----------



## Pacheko17 (Oct 3, 2017)

leonmagnus99 said:


> is brazil still so corrupt ?
> 
> i believe this is because of the poverty nay ?
> it isnt just brazil though, i cant remember how damn long it was when i was reading/watching stuff about south america and the corruption there.
> ...



BlueFox is just very anti-patriotic. Depending on where you live in Brazil, it is completely fine.
There hasn't been a single shooting where I live in years.


----------



## Todderbert (Oct 3, 2017)

My wife read the news to me last night.  She was saying gun sales are up because of this.  I told her that's fine and all, but you can't go around carrying an Anti-Sniper rifle on your person at all times.  I'm for concealed carry laws, but a handgun vs this is a no brainer.  If this guy was in the crowd like that idiot "Joker" and the Batman shooting incident in Colorado, then you would have had a chance to stop the threat.  I know the theater says no guns, but if there is no detector I'm sure there would have a been a few respectable citizens breaking the law to protect their families wherever they may be.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Oct 3, 2017)

guns are like vehicles, they are only as safe as its owner. this whole wars on guns reminds me of the failing/failed war on drugs. no wall will stop them. no president can control them. we just need to take care of ourselves and not get hit by that car.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

slaphappygamer said:


> guns are like vehicles, they are only as safe as its owner. this whole wars on guns reminds me of the failing/failed war on drugs. no wall will stop them. no president can control them. we just need to take care of ourselves and not get hit by that car.


It's funny because Australia

Like honestly it's so easy to pick out American's comments whenever stuff like this happens


----------



## Monty Kensicle (Oct 3, 2017)

Clydefrosch said:


> considering he chose to kill people from a hotelwindow far far away, he most likely wouldn't have had the stomach to go for something like that.
> 
> guns give you distance, you dont need to see people bleeding, and gore, hear the begging and dying, from some distance, like a few steps away, they seem an almost surgically clean way to dispose of people. which is one of the many reasons why distance weapons have always revolutionized warfare, because they've always allowed the squeamish to kill effectively too.
> 
> also, the success in reducing overall murder by restricting access to guns in other countries kinda speaks for itself.





Clydefrosch said:


> considering he chose to kill people from a hotelwindow far far away, he most likely wouldn't have had the stomach to go for something like that.
> 
> guns give you distance, you dont need to see people bleeding, and gore, hear the begging and dying, from some distance, like a few steps away, they seem an almost surgically clean way to dispose of people. which is one of the many reasons why distance weapons have always revolutionized warfare, because they've always allowed the squeamish to kill effectively too.
> 
> also, the success in reducing overall murder by restricting access to guns in other countries kinda speaks for itself.


Maybe, maybe not. Just because he chose this method to kill innocents doesn't necessarily he wouldn't have done it at all if his access to guns were restricted. Anger and sadness are great motivators.

If guns laws did become stricter I would be much aggrieved that I would lose the convenience of being able to quickly and easily end my own life if I ever wanted to.


----------



## Abu_Senpai (Oct 3, 2017)

I heard about this the night after it happened.

Damn just damn. I hope the families of the deceased find some solace in the fact that the killer is dead. And i hope the hundreds that are injured heal up and make it out of the hospitals alive.

These senseless killings must stop. Americas gun laws are way to lax especially considering the amount of weapons that asshole had on him.



I cant put it any better than he did.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 3, 2017)

The solution is not more laws. It's like caging an animal and repeatedly poking it with a stick. Eventually it will escape the cage and hurt a lot of people.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> The solution is not more laws. It's like caging an animal and repeatedly poking it with a stick. Eventually it will escape the cage and hurt a lot of people.


Could you explain that analogy for me?...


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you explain that analogy for me?...


if you starve an animal then give it any kind of meat (including living humans) it will eat
romans? would do that with animals so they would attack gladiators

if you restrict citizens the same thing can happen


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 3, 2017)

Dang, I've been right where that shooting happened. My condolences to the families and victims after what this guy did.

As for the gun debate, a bit too early to jump into that yet imo. I'd say we'd need to know:
A) where and how did he get the guns
B) what types of guns/weapons did he have, and we're they illegal
Before we can fully see what the problem really was in this case and if laws would've actually stopped him. I've heard the guy had a fully automatic weapon which are illegal here in the states. If that's the case then stricter gun laws wouldn't of stopped this guy. Please call me out if he didn't have a fully automatic weapon, I haven't been too up to date on the situation. Heard the SWAT went to his hotel room and home, but didn't hear everything that they found yet.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 3, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'm willing to wager the weapon used was either stolen or bought  illegitimately. You could ban every gun in the US, or enforce some sort of strict registration process, but there are already so many in circulation, obtaining one would be trivial. Not to mention smuggling more from Mexico.


The way it was done in Australia was a gun amnesty, where the government buys back weapons at a fair market price that have just become illegal. Once you can't buy guns legally easily the supply for criminals dries up as well. Not to say they'll be completely gone, but will be difficult for the average criminal to get their hands on (in the US probably every second house that gets broken into has guns which are stolen and added to the criminal supply).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



rileysrjay said:


> Dang, I've been right where that shooting happened. My condolences to the families and victims after what this guy did.
> 
> As for the gun debate, a bit too early to jump into that yet imo. I'd say we'd need to know:
> A) where and how did he get the guns
> ...


Hard to imagine it wouldn't have been automatic given the number of people he managed to kill in such a short time.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 3, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's funny because Australia
> 
> Like honestly it's so easy to pick out American's comments whenever stuff like this happens



Why? Because gun advocates? Isn't that a bit petty?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

Eix said:


> if you starve an animal then give it any kind of meat (including living humans) it will eat
> romans? would do that with animals so they would attack gladiators
> 
> if you restrict citizens the same thing can happen


Well I get that much, but in the case of more restrictive laws it would be like you removed the teeth and claws of the lion, which cripples most methods of harm...


Memoir said:


> Why? Because gun advocates? Isn't that a bit petty?


Not just that, see @Quantumcat's post. The reason I say Americans are easy to spot whenever a discussion on mass shootings happens is because we're brainwashed to believe that this is just the risk of living in a "civilized" country, even though this is the only country where mass shootings of this scale happen with any sort of frequency


----------



## Lpckid (Oct 3, 2017)

I'm 11 blocks from we're it happend 49 dead 500 and sum wounded.


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 3, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Hard to imagine it wouldn't have been automatic given the number of people he managed to kill in such a short time.


Yup, heard it was an automatic he used in the shooting a few minutes ago on the radio. So I'd say it's safe to guess this guy would've probably done this anyways even if gun laws we're stricter.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I guess the big question now is how did he manage to get an illegal weapon?


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Yup, heard it was an automatic he used in the shooting a few minutes ago on the radio. So I'd say it's safe to guess this guy would've probably done this anyways even if gun laws we're stricter.


In Las Vegas, you _can _buy a fully automatic rifle legally if it's "grandfathered." It's highly expensive (think $20k+ range), but doable and completely legal. Kind of amazes me.

Let's also not forget how easy it is to transform a semi-automatic into firing at the same rate as a full automatic. Can literally be done in a matter of minutes. Or you can buy a bump-stock for your rifle and it effectively does the same thing.


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 3, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> In Las Vegas, you _can _buy a fully automatic rifle legally if it's "grandfathered." It's highly expensive (think $20k+ range), but doable and completely legal. Kind of amazes me.
> 
> Let's also not forget how easy it is to transform a semi-automatic into firing at the same rate as a full automatic. Can literally be done in a matter of minutes. Or you can buy a bump-stock for your rifle and it effectively does the same thing.


Wait, really? Seems not just kinda stupid, but really stupid. Also Good point. Still gonna wait and see how he got the guns in the first place though, if they even release that info.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Wait, really? Seems not just kinda stupid, but really stupid. Also Good point. Still gonna wait and see how he got the guns in the first place though, if they even release that info.


Very stupid indeed.
And yeah, lot of questions I want answered, too. I think the shooter's motive would be the prime thing we all want to know.


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 3, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Very stupid indeed.
> And yeah, lot of questions I want answered, too. I think the shooter's motive would be the prime thing we all want to know.


Yup, definitely the main thing on everyone's mind, and something tells me we're never really going to know the exact reason why he did it. It could be anything from politics to wanting to go out with a bang, even if that includes killing a bunch of innocent bystanders.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Oct 3, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's funny because Australia
> 
> Like honestly it's so easy to pick out American's comments whenever stuff like this happens


That’s because it’s only a problem here. Really, I never hear if things like this elsewhere, bombings excluded.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Yup, definitely the main thing on everyone's mind, and something tells me we're never really going to know the exact reason why he did it. It could be anything from politics to wanting to go out with a bang, even if that includes killing a bunch of innocent bystanders.


I think you're right, as sad as that is. Doesn't seem like he telegraphed his actions anywhere and his relatives are all at a loss. I just hope there's closure.
There's a TV tuned to CNN near me and the headline reads that they found 42(!) guns between the shooter's hotel room and his home. Jeez, that's enough to arm a small militia. How does one person accrue so much firepower?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

slaphappygamer said:


> That’s because it’s only a problem here. Really, I never hear if things like this elsewhere, bombings excluded.


Exactly, but that doesn't need to be the case


----------



## SG854 (Oct 3, 2017)

This is really sad. The Jimmy Kimmel video, this whole thing is just really sad. I was watching videos of people screaming and panicking, people on the floor dead and people crying. Not a good feeling.



Gizametalman said:


> Pff...if any given country/place in the world suddenly had a Diarrhea Epidemy, ISIS would even dare to claim that as their actions. ISIS only wants you to have fear, so they will say whatever and use whichever scenario possible to give you fear.
> 
> 
> My Comment:
> ...



To say Americans aren't peaceful or not mentally stable is ridiculous. The vast majority of people were helping each other at the shooting. You have people using their own t-shirts to try to stop the bleeding for people that were injured, people acting as human shields to protect their loved ones (a man died protecting his wife), people carrying injured people out of the arena, people using their trucks to drive people to the hospital. You have lines that are packed full of people donating their blood, and many people donating money.

You use one guy that killed a bunch of people, as reasoning to say Americans aren't peaceful or mentally stable, when the vast majority are peaceful and doing what they can to help. 1 guy or the very few that do school shootings, compared to the vast majority of people that aren't doing shootings, and the thousands of helpful people trying to keep each other safe and putting their lives at risk for others. You have more people putting their lives at risk then doing shootings. It seems the vast Americans are the opposite of mental instability. You're completely ignoring the good for a thought process that has nothing to do with reality.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 3, 2017)

Gizametalman said:


> Pff...if any given country/place in the world suddenly had a Diarrhea Epidemy, ISIS would even dare to claim that as their actions. ISIS only wants you to have fear, so they will say whatever and use whichever scenario possible to give you fear.
> 
> 
> My Comment:
> ...


Ignorance is common place in this world. You, unfortunately, are no better. You're not right. You're generalizing a nation. For who knows why.. You're talking down on everyone else for the actions of so few. Threads like these should be locked almost immediately. They always spawn controversial "debates" and have someone shit talking a country as a whole or its people... It's pathetic.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 3, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Ignorance is common place in this world. You, unfortunately, are no better. You're not right. You're generalizing a nation. For who knows why.. You're talking down on everyone else for the actions of so few. Threads like these should be locked almost immediately. They always spawn controversial "debates" and have someone shit talking a country as a whole.


I don't think this thread should be shut down regardless of how unfounded their shit talking is. Its better to let these open and show how their reasonsing doesn't make sense.


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 3, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Ignorance is common place in this world. You, unfortunately, are no better. You're not right. You're generalizing a nation. For who knows why.. You're talking down on everyone else for the actions of so few. Threads like these should be locked almost immediately. They always spawn controversial "debates" and have someone shit talking a country as a whole.


Yup, there's a lot of generalization on the temp, dare I say it's one of the temps worst diseases/ problems atm? I've seen it with religion, certain viewpoints, and politics way too many times on here. Most people that do say crap about a certain country don't even belong to that country.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 3, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you explain that analogy for me?...


The guy you responded to put it better than I would.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well I get that much, but in the case of more restrictive laws it would be like you removed the teeth and claws of the lion, which cripples most methods of harm...


Now think about the Lion's quality of life.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 3, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I don't think this thread should be shut down regardless of how unfounded their shit talking is. Its better to let these open and show how their reasonsing doesn't make sense.


This isn't the thread for broken debate or ignorant hate speech. People died.. Needlessly... At the hands of a selfish dick who decided to play God for a short period of time.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 3, 2017)

Gizametalman said:


> That said, in USA even a fucking child can get a fucking machinegun.


What? You have to be 18 to even buy a BB gun. Nice try though.


----------



## Gizametalman (Oct 3, 2017)

What?
Funny how my comment's been there for more than, wha, 7 hours. And now everyone notices it.
Ha, may your god bless your country, you're all such an amazing nation.
/s

And as I said, don't care, the truth is that anyone can have guns there.
You can keep your patriotism 
PS: I hate everyone. If you're feeling special just for being Americans, then you just proved my point.

Incoming ban in 3...2...1...


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 3, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Yup, there's a lot of generalization on the temp, dare I say it's one of the temps worst diseases/ problems atm? I've seen it with religion, certain viewpoints, and politics way too many times on here. Most people that do say crap about a certain country don't even belong to that country.


Not exclusive to the Temp. Happens everywhere. And there's plenty of people who don't generalize, so I guess you could say you're generalizing the Temp


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 3, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Not exclusive to the Temp. Happens everywhere. And there's plenty of people who don't generalize, so I guess you could say you're generalizing the Temp


You got me good. 
But yeah, some people here don't generalize and I've had some pretty good conversations with them, but some others (occasionally including myself) do generalize and act like turds.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> The guy you responded to put it better than I would.
> 
> Now think about the Lion's quality of life.


Are you saying that inherintly aggressive people require weaponry to function properly in society?.......

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Subtle Demise said:


> What? You have to be 18 to even buy a BB gun. Nice try though.


Unless you're at a buy/sell/trade, in which case it's considered a private sale and you could buy a cannon if you wanted to

Provided you live in the same state, of course. Wouldn't want to leave that "restriction" out /s


----------



## sp3off (Oct 3, 2017)

O.o in France they also talked about Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas shooting, and they said 52 dead with 515 injured (looked this morning)

EDIT : Now 59 dead. ISIS sais it was their attack.

So now the gunman is an American that was for ISIS. Well, what in a world we live in...


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 3, 2017)

sp3off said:


> O.o in France they also talked about Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas shooting, and they said 52 dead with 515 injured (looked this morning)
> 
> EDIT : Now 59 dead. ISIS sais it was their attack.
> 
> So now the gunman is an American that was for ISIS. Well, what in a world we live in...



The FBI or whoever stated he wasn't affiliated with any terrorist group, ISIS is just lying for boastful purposes. Anyways, I really liked this monologue by Colbert about this.


----------



## sp3off (Oct 3, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> The FBI or whoever stated he wasn't affiliated with any terrorist group, ISIS is just lying for boastful purposes. Anyways, I really liked this monologue by Colbert about this.




Ah, they wanted to hoax just to make people fear.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 3, 2017)

You guys don't seem to understand the fact that anyone can turn to anything at any time. I could have a gun for 15 years and not have a drip of crime on my record, and go to my local supermarket and start shooting. Just because you don't have a criminal record doesn't mean your good, but it doesn't mean your bad, either. Laws and rules are followed as long as the government is feared, see how North Korea does it? There will always be bad people on this Earth, so I ask you, GBATemp community, to come with me to Mars .  But seriously, doesn't matter the country, the background, the personality, the color, we are all kind and we are all evil. If anyone is given too much power they will abuse it. If anyone is given too much money they will want more. However, understand this. Things can't exist without their opposites. Inside wouldn't exist without outside. Cold wouldn't exist without heat. *Happiness couldn't exist without sadness. *If you were never sad you would never truly be happy. You would become bored. You wouldn't know what it would feel like to have *less.* You would take everything and become a snobby, obnoxious, jerk-face 5 year old. This is why events like this happen. To remind us of what it is truly like to lose something, especially human lives. We can never get them back. They're gone forever. I don't want to depress everyone but this is something you can't lie about. This is a time for us Tempers to come together and think of what we have and what we can lose. Hope you guys learned something from this extremely long post. FYI, hotels like that don't have metal detectors, so anyone can bring anything inside. Important hotels do. This shooting was exactly like the killing of John F. Kennedy. A gunman shot 2 bullets from a tall building and killed JFK. He was arrested and shot and killed by another man the same way during a prison transfer. Also, ISIS claims responsibilty for every unexplainable shooting to strike fear into people.


----------



## Olmectron (Oct 3, 2017)

This is simply so sad.

I wish every weapon in the planet disappeared and instead, every person with really really bad intentions just died of a heart attack before commiting their crimes. That way, who'd need weapons?

Sad for everyone involved. I'll pray for each and every of the victims and their families.

PS. For those talking about generalizations here, when a thread about the wall Trump wants to build so that Mexican criminals stay the other side, and that Mexico pays for it, some comments did really, really hurt. Some people saying "all Mexicans are criminals and addicts", "Mexico as a country must pay because they send their trash to our country", and some other nasty things from users I never thought would have such generalized ideas about us. I'm not defending anyone, I think the other Mexican flag user is being completely rude, but I've seen generalizations before here in the Temp, and I never saw that thread menaced to be closed, even when multiple very rude comments against a country.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 3, 2017)

sorry about this post

read the one two above


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 3, 2017)

aykay55 said:


> This shooting was exactly like the killing of John F. Kennedy.



What? I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald had as many guns as Stephen Paddock, one important political figure against hundreds of people for probably less of a reason than JFK. There's loads of differences, and with this shooting, I know gun control is easy to blame, but it's astonishing that this man bought a crap ton of guns. Regardless of the seller saying he passed background checks, it's suspect that nobody looked at his purchasing history, his purchasing list, and question the reasons for having so many weapons. I mean, avid gun collector? Okay, but at least ask to make sure. Also the hotel thing, how did all those guns make it into the man's hotel room? Negligible security?

And since this guy can never be interrogated for motives and stuff, the immediate future will gradually feature facts about his past, trying to understand why he "turned." Your post informs that we should come together and think of what we have and what we can lose. I interpret that as thinking about oneself. That's the last thing to do with this situation, I'm thinking more how, why with this person, as well as what should be done about this, what will be done about this, and condolences and sympathy for the victims. To generalize one of your statements, I agree that this is a time of reflection, I just have other things to reflect about, as already stated.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 3, 2017)

aykay55 said:


> You guys don't seem to understand the fact that anyone can turn to anything at any time. I could have a gun for 15 years and not have a drip of crime on my record, and go to my local supermarket and start shooting. Just because you don't have a criminal record doesn't mean your good, but it doesn't mean your bad, either. Laws and rules are followed as long as the government is feared, see how North Korea does it? There will always be bad people on this Earth, so I ask you, GBATemp community, to come with me to Mars .  But seriously, doesn't matter the country, the background, the personality, the color, we are all kind and we are all evil. If anyone is given too much power they will abuse it. If anyone is given too much money they will want more. However, understand this. Things can't exist without their opposites. Inside wouldn't exist without outside. Cold wouldn't exist without heat. *Happiness couldn't exist without sadness. *If you were never sad you would never truly be happy. You would become bored. You wouldn't know what it would feel like to have *less.* You would take everything and become a snobby, obnoxious, jerk-face 5 year old. This is why events like this happen. To remind us of what it is truly like to lose something, especially human lives. We can never get them back. They're gone forever. I don't want to depress everyone but this is something you can't lie about. This is a time for us Tempers to come together and think of what we have and what we can lose. Hope you guys learned something from this extremely long post. FYI, hotels like that don't have metal detectors, so anyone can bring anything inside. Important hotels do. This shooting was exactly like the killing of John F. Kennedy. A gunman shot 2 bullets from a tall building and killed JFK. He was arrested and shot and killed by another man the same way during a prison transfer. Also, ISIS claims responsibilty for every unexplainable shooting to strike fear into people.





RustInPeace said:


> What? I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald had as many guns as Stephen Paddock, one important political figure against hundreds of people for probably less of a reason than JFK. There's loads of differences, and with this shooting, I know gun control is easy to blame, but it's astonishing that this man bought a crap ton of guns. Regardless of the seller saying he passed background checks, it's suspect that nobody looked at his purchasing history, his purchasing list, and question the reasons for having so many weapons. I mean, avid gun collector? Okay, but at least ask to make sure. Also the hotel thing, how did all those guns make it into the man's hotel room? Negligible security?
> 
> And since this guy can never be interrogated for motives and stuff, the immediate future will gradually feature facts about his past, trying to understand why he "turned." Your post informs that we should come together and think of what we have and what we can lose. I interpret that as thinking about oneself. That's the last thing to do with this situation, I'm thinking more how, why with this person, as well as what should be done about this, what will be done about this, and condolences and sympathy for the victims. To generalize one of your statements, I agree that this is a time of reflection, I just have other things to reflect about, as already stated.


FYI, there is NO security in most hotels. Some hotels have metal detectors inside the entrances or right after, but not Marriot or Courtyard or most others. There is usually a cop there though, so if you see someone in a hotel with a gun be sure to tell the front desk.


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 3, 2017)

aykay55 said:


> FYI, there is NO security in most hotels. Some hotels have metal detectors inside the entrances or right after, but not Marriot or Courtyard or most others. There is usually a cop there though, so if you see someone in a hotel with a gun be sure to tell the front desk.



Okay, thanks for the Smokey the Bear tip, but the place the guy was shooting at was from the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino, surely there has to be security there? His bags weren't check? I said earlier in the thread about being like Captain Hindsight from South Park, posing such questions, because I feel like this could've been prevented. Or at least in the future, tragic that it comes at the expense of hundreds of victims.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> Okay, thanks for the Smokey the Bear tip, but the place the guy was shooting at was from the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino, surely there has to be security there? His bags weren't check? I said earlier in the thread about being like Captain Hindsight from South Park, posing such questions, because I feel like this could've been prevented. Or at least in the future, tragic that it comes at the expense of hundreds of victims.


I 95% guarantee nothing will change, and we all know why


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 4, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Are you saying that inherintly aggressive people require weaponry to function properly in society?.......


No but many probably require some kind of prescription drug that's been made unobtainable by the likes of the DEA, as an example.

And speaking of that: why do these maniacs always target innocents rather than corrupt politicians or business executives? It would at least make more sense then.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> You got me good.
> But yeah, some people here don't generalize and I've had some pretty good conversations with them, but some others (occasionally including myself) do generalize and act like turds.


Haha, no worries dude, I'm guilty too


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> No but many probably require some kind of prescription drug that's been made unobtainable by the likes of the DEA, as an example.
> 
> And speaking of that: why do these maniacs always target innocents rather than corrupt politicians or business executives? It would at least make more sense then.


What does any of this have to do with your analogy that restricting gun ownership is like caging a lion


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Yup, there's a lot of generalization on the temp, dare I say it's one of the temps worst diseases/ problems atm? I've seen it with religion, certain viewpoints, and politics way too many times on here. Most people that do say crap about a certain country don't even belong to that country.


It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".



I can't tell if you're serious or not. Last I checked, I wasn't diagnosed with some mental condition where in layman's terms, it's considered me being brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest, being a lifelong resident by the way.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".


Have you noticed that not one US based temper has done that? Or are you too stuck in your biased ignorance to pay any attention?

This is why i think politics on the temp should be a bannable offense. It brings out some of the worst ignorance I've seen.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 4, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> I can't tell if you're serious or not. Last I checked, I wasn't diagnosed with some mental condition where in layman's terms, it's considered me being brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest, being a lifelong resident by the way.


Btw, it's lamence terms, not layman's terms


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".


Um, I hope this post is joking. You kinda just did the whole generalizing a country by being an outsider thing I just mentioned. Plus there's people here on the temp that call the US's issues out all the time that are from within the U.S., so we aren't all "brainwashed" as you say.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".


Yeah, like @Memoir said, the US is not perfect but it's doing better than others. Besides, you guys still believe the roads are paved with gold.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Um, I hope this post is joking. You kinda just did the whole generalizing a country by being an outsider thing I just mentioned. Plus there's people here on the temp that call the US's issues out all the time that are from within the U.S., so we aren't all "brainwashed" as you say.


$10 says he's trolling and we're taking it too seriously. Rawr!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



aykay55 said:


> Btw, it's lamence terms, not layman's terms


It's layman's terms. ><


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 4, 2017)

aykay55 said:


> Btw, it's lamence terms, not layman's terms



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 4, 2017)

Lol, my beautiful lengthy post I worked 20 minutes on has gotten lost on the previous page. http://gbatemp.net/threads/las-vegas-shooting.485680/page-5#post-7612789 for anyone who cares to see me lecture like a priest.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RustInPeace said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_English





Memoir said:


> $10 says he's trolling and we're taking it too seriously. Rawr!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. That's what I've been taught all my life. But it means the exact same thing.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 4, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Um, I hope this post is joking. You kinda just did the whole generalizing a country by being an outsider thing I just mentioned. Plus there's people here on the temp that call the US's issues out all the time that are from within the U.S., so we aren't all "brainwashed" as you say.


Probably there are some who have woken up. I haven't seen anyone outside the US attempt to defend the lack of gun laws though. That's unique to US residents.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".


_*facepalm*_
It's very clear you are not an American. Please do not speak for others or generalize such a large country that's so diverse in culture, thinking, and beliefs. Additionally, you are conflating patriotism with ignorance (your words: "brainwash"ing). I'm very patriotic yet I'll unapologetically call out this country's crap. This isn't a zero sum game.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 4, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> _*facepalm*_
> It's very clear you are not an American. Please do not speak for others or generalize such a large country that's so diverse in culture, thinking, and beliefs. Additionally, you are conflating patriotism with ignorance (your words: "brainwash"ing). I'm very patriotic yet I'll unapologetically call out this country's crap. This isn't a zero sum game.


You're right, not everyone. I have yet to see someone outside the US defend the crazy stuff that happens there though.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> You're right, not everyone. I have yet to see someone outside the US defend the crazy stuff that happens there though.


It's because of the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms. Defense of gun ownership is enshrined in our most fundamental governing doctrine. No one is defending the crazy things that have happened. I haven't seen anyone "defend" what happened in Las Vegas. However, there is a separate debate around the 2nd amendment occurring right now in our hyper-charged political climate, and some do see the right to own firearms a right of citizens, the chief argument being self defense. I'm not going to argue the merits of that argument right now, rather I'm trying to show you why people do defend the right to own guns. And again, no one is defending horrible atrocities like Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, etc.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It makes sense that the people talking crap about the USA are all outside it. The people inside are brainwashed to believe the USA is the greatest and it is OK that all these awful things happen because they have "freedom". When they are told that all these awful things are not normal, by people on the outside, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalala".


According to Pew, roughly 29% of Americans say the USA is the best country in the world, when asked if it's the greatest, one of the greatest, or worse than other countries. Among people 65+ years old or politically conservative, that number is 44% and 47% respectively.



HaloEliteLegend said:


> It's because of the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms. Defense of gun ownership is enshrined in our most fundamental governing doctrine.


That's a relatively new view.



HaloEliteLegend said:


> No one is defending the crazy things that have happened. I haven't seen anyone "defend" what happened in Las Vegas. However, there is a separate debate around the 2nd amendment occurring right now in our hyper-charged political climate, and some do see the right to own firearms a right of citizens, the chief argument being self defense. I'm not going to argue the merits of that argument right now, rather I'm trying to show you why people do defend the right to own guns. And again, no one is defending horrible atrocities like Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, etc.


You're not defending atrocities, but you're arguably helping to enable them. It's objectively true that the kind of gun regulation that has been proposed reduces the frequency of these kinds of atrocities.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> According to Pew, roughly 29% of Americans say the USA is the best country in the world, when asked if it's the greatest, one of the greatest, or worse than other countries. Among people 65+ years old or politically conservative, that number is 44% and 47% respectively.
> 
> 
> That's a relatively new view.
> ...


If it's objectively true, I'm assuming you have verifiable proof.

I can't be damned to care for gun control due to one belief. Criminals and laws don't mix. Doesn't mean I'm 100% against it. Just can't see how it'll fix the issue. Considering a nice amount of massacres in the past couple of years involved a vehicle.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You're not defending atrocities, but you're arguably helping to enable them. It's objectively true that the kind of gun regulation that has been proposed reduces the frequency of these kinds of atrocities.


Right, and that's the crux of the current debate. I don't know about 'objective' given how varied the proposals have been and how much is just theoretical, but yeah, big debate over regulation.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2017)

Memoir said:


> If it's objectively true, I'm assuming you have verifiable proof.
> 
> I can't be damned to care for gun control due to one belief. Criminals and laws don't mix. Doesn't mean I'm 100% against it. Just can't see how it'll fix the issue. Considering a nice amount of massacres in the past couple of years involved a vehicle.


I don't have the energy to have this conversation every time a gun massacre happens. It's just too frequent. Here's a starting point for your presumably genuine curiosity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Studies



HaloEliteLegend said:


> Right, and that's the crux of the current debate. I don't know about 'objective' given how varied the proposals have been and how much is just theoretical, but yeah, big debate over regulation.


We have data on the effects of specific gun regulations.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I don't have the energy to have this conversation every time a gun massacre happens. It's just too frequent. Here's a starting point for your presumably genuine curiosity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Studies
> 
> 
> We have data on the effects of specific gun regulations.



Already reading about mostly suicide rates.. This will get nowhere, fast. If you can't be assed to have the conversation, then don't start. Not difficult.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> We have data on the effects of specific gun regulations.


I'm yet to read up on gun control and I'm currently far too busy to care, but I see the end goal as being to reduce as much crime as possible. I'm for anything that helps achieve that end.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 4, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> I'm yet to read up on gun control and I'm currently far too busy to care, but I see the end goal as being to reduce as much crime as possible. I'm for anything that helps achieve that end.



Can't say gun control will fix crazy. May or may not have an impact on long term numbers, so that's something.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Already reading about mostly suicide rates.. This will get nowhere, fast. If you can't be assed to have the conversation, then don't start. Not difficult.


I don't know about you, but I don't disparage suicide rates as if they don't matter to the discussion. Second, the article addresses homicides and mass shootings. If you don't want to keep reading, Control-F is your friend.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Can't say gun control will fix crazy. May or may not have an impact on long term numbers, so that's something.


Maybe! I'd like to look at the facts and data for myself before forming an opinion so for now call me neutral.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 4, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Maybe! I'd like to look at the facts and data for myself before forming an opinion so for now call me neutral.


Kind of where I'm sitting. Grinds my gears when the diehards scream "GUN CONTROL" when things happen though. Mostly a personal problem, but yeah..


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Kind of where I'm sitting. Grinds my gears when the diehards scream "GUN CONTROL" when things happen though. Mostly a personal problem, but yeah..


Aside from exhaustion, why wouldn't we continue to advocate for that which would do well to reduce the frequency of these attacks? Anything else would be complacency.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Kind of where I'm sitting. Grinds my gears when the diehards scream "GUN CONTROL" when things happen though. Mostly a personal problem, but yeah..


Yeah, I'm honestly tired of the same circlejerk every time one of these atrocities happens. Half the people go "GUN CONTROL" and the other half retort "SELF DEFENSE" and then everyone's like "Congress needs to do something!" "We can't let this happen again!" and then nothing gets done and everyone's time is wasted and it repeats all over again. I don't expect this latest circlejerk to end up with any results, either so I'm not even bothering.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Aside from exhaustion, why wouldn't we continue to advocate for that which would do well to reduce the frequency of these attacks? Anything else would be complacency.


I wish something, _anything_ would get done. We just keep goin' round and round and round...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Yeah, I'm honestly tired of the same circlejerk every time one of these atrocities happens. Half the people go "GUN CONTROL" and the other half retort "SELF DEFENSE" and then everyone's like "Congress needs to do something!" "We can't let this happen again!" and then nothing gets done and everyone's time is wasted and it repeats all over again. I don't expect this latest circlejerk to end up with any results, either so I'm not even bothering.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


That doesn't mean the people shouting "gun control" are the problem. If anything, they're the only ones doing anything right.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 4, 2017)

This is quite strange. 3 *Americans* arguing about whether the US is the best country in the world. @Quantumcat Hope you realize how not every American is brainwashed.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2017)

aykay55 said:


> This is quite strange. 3 *Americans* arguing about whether the US is the best country in the world. @Quantumcat Hope you realize how not every American is brainwashed.


It's unlikely @Quantumcat meant every American was brainwashed. More likely, she was just addressing the very real disease that is American nationalism.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Oct 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> That doesn't mean the people shouting "gun control" are the problem. If anything, they're the only ones doing anything right.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the people who are trying. I think I'm speaking out of how incredibly weary I am right now about the mountain of work and studies I have pending this month... Talk to me again late November and I'll likely be a bit more optimistic, haha.


----------



## slaphappygamer (Oct 4, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> What? You have to be 18 to even buy a BB gun. Nice try though.


If you want to leagally buy one. You also have to be 21 to drink.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 4, 2017)

slaphappygamer said:


> If you want to leagally buy one. You also have to be 21 to drink.


Doesn't matter cause parents/guardians are legally allowed to give their children of any age a gun. You have to have a guardian by law if you're under the age of 18, so you can't buy one but can use one. They are responsible for them and have to supervise them at all times, and responsible for any and all damage by the child. Ever seen the episode:


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 4, 2017)

Lacius said:


> It's unlikely @Quantumcat meant every American was brainwashed. More likely, she was just addressing the very real disease that is American nationalism.



Is that disease showing up now? I haven't seen the things she's claimed in the wake of this particular issue, so it's rather odd to bring that up. Before the massacre? Okay, I can kind of see that, but now? And addressing the gun control response. Just...something! Do something! Congress, Trump, any legislator, just fucking do something! That's all I want, something, not nothing. My body temperature's warming up just typing this out, I'm passionate about that plea. Just do something for fuck's sake.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> Is that disease showing up now? I haven't seen the things she's claimed in the wake of this particular issue, so it's rather odd to bring that up. Before the massacre? Okay, I can kind of see that, but now? And addressing the gun control response. Just...something! Do something! Congress, Trump, any legislator, just fucking do something! That's all I want, something, not nothing. My body temperature's warming up just typing this out, I'm passionate about that plea. Just do something for fuck's sake.


I'm actually pleasantly surprised that it hasn't by now, but the 'temp's chronic offenders that represent the far right nationalist views whenever this debate comes up seem to be asleep and/or ignoring the situation right now

I'm not going to tag them because I really, _really _don't want to deal with them right now


----------



## Posghetti (Oct 4, 2017)

Just so sad..


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2017)

The NRA of course pulled their ads encouraging violence toward liberals in the wake of this shooting, but their plan is to reportedly bring them back in eight days.  Because that's the acceptable amount of time passed after a tragedy to start advocating for violence again, right?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 4, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What does any of this have to do with your analogy that restricting gun ownership is like caging a lion


Well, if we go back to the drafting of the constitution, the writers did not want this new nation to become like the one they just rebelled against, so they wrote in the constitution that the citizens shall have the right to bear arms and to form a militia. Now, try to take the guns, and there will be trouble from all these state militias that have formed over the years. The caged animal also refers to the general police state nature that has formed in most of the developed nations around the world. In the US alone there are several government agencies that have the power to create laws without going through Congress, as well as no chance of veto from the president. How is that right? What happened to checks and balances? Why hasn't the Supreme Court stopped this?


slaphappygamer said:


> If you want to leagally buy one. You also have to be 21 to drink.


Well who's going to follow a gun ban then? There are already a lot of restrictions as to what kind of person can own what type of gun, but that doesn't stop them from getting them anyway. For instance, even non-violent felonies prevent a person from legally owning any type of gun, even hunting rifles. Police find them every day regardless. Laws do not prevent crime. They just cause more people to become convicted, causing the illusion that they're doing good, when in reality the prison system creates more criminals when they are released.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> Well, if we go back to the drafting of the constitution, the writers did not want this new nation to become like the one they just rebelled against, so they wrote in the constitution that the citizens shall have the right to bear arms and to form a militia. Now, try to take the guns, and there will be trouble from all these state militias that have formed over the years. The caged animal also refers to the general police state nature that has formed in most of the developed nations around the world. In the US alone there are several government agencies that have the power to create laws without going through Congress, as well as no chance of veto from the president. How is that right? What happened to checks and balances? Why hasn't the Supreme Court stopped this?
> 
> Well who's going to follow a gun ban then? There are already a lot of restrictions as to what kind of person can own what type of gun, but that doesn't stop them from getting them anyway. For instance, even non-violent felonies prevent a person from legally owning any type of gun, even hunting rifles. Police find them every day regardless. Laws do not prevent crime. They just cause more people to become convicted, causing the illusion that they're doing good, when in reality the prison system creates more criminals when they are released.


That wasn't what I was asking about, you specifically said something about medication

Also, the constitution doesn't cover the right to hunt


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 4, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That wasn't what I was asking about, you specifically said something about medication
> 
> Also, the constitution doesn't cover the right to hunt


I don't remember saying anything about hunting in the constitution, but if I did it was a mistake or I was unclear about something. As for the medication thing, there are many people who are in chronic pain whose doctors either refuse to subscribe narcotic painkillers, Federal limits on how much a single person can be prescribed aren't enough to effectively control their pain, or they simply can't afford to see a doctor at all due to not being able to afford insurance, and not eligible for Medicaid/Medicare. Their options are: Try to obtain the medication or similar alternatives through the black market, grow opium poppies or cannabis or some other banned plant (even though both of those have a proven track record of being medically beneficial), or go to something like kratom, which was recently about to be banned despite helping many through addiction to drug and alcohol, as well as pain relief and euphoric properties that would probably help with a lot of mental conditions as well. It's nearly impossible to be prescribed benzodiazepines in the US as well, despite the fact easy access to these things as well as marijuana would prevent a lot of violence. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Gizametalman (Oct 4, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH XD lmao
> that made me laugh, do you really think something could get better in this end world country? XD HAHAHAHA



Woah! One can generalize that all Brazil is corrupt due everyone being in poverty, but if a Mexican say: Otherwise you wouldn't have the exact same scenario in schools" everyone goes crazy and starts saying: "You sick don't generalize us"

Once again, you all just proved my point.
And i quote: Even a fucking child can get a machine gun easily.


Yes I'm rude and bad and everything you want, if being right in opinion offends you, that's not my problem. Once again, prove my point.


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 4, 2017)

Gizametalman said:


> Woah! One can generalize that all Brazil is corrupt due everyone being in poverty, but if a Mexican say: Otherwise you wouldn't have the exact same scenario in schools" everyone goes crazy and starts saying: "You sick don't generalize us"
> 
> Once again, you all just proved my point.
> And i quote: Even a fucking child can get a machine gun easily.
> ...



Lol i posted the exact same vid on the last page


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2017)

Gizametalman said:


> .
> And i quote: Even a fucking child can get a machine gun easily.
> .




There are no machine guns in that video.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> There are no machine guns in that video.


Yes there are. The son gets an AK47 near the end. Did you watch it all the way through?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Yes there are. The son gets an AK47 near the end. Did you watch it all the way through?



That AK47 is semiautomatic, not a machine gun.

Besides he didn't 'get' it. They let him hold it for a few seconds, and you can be quite sure it wasn't loaded. That video seems staged as fuck.

If you want to legally purchase an actual machine gun, you'll have to first apply to BATFE for a Class III permit, go through their Class III background check (not the usual background check for gun purchases), pay for the tax stamp if approved, wait a VERY long time before the paperwork actually goes through, and then actually purchase the gun which will in most cases be $20,000 or more. Sometimes much more. There was a law passed in 1986 that banned any further importation of full auto firearms, and sale to civilians of any new full auto firearms. The only 'machine guns' that civilians can buy and sell were already in circulation prior to 1986, so the supply is finite and tightly regulated/supervised by BATFE. There aren't that many actually for sale at any given time. Most of them are owned only for collector/investment value, or to make some money off letting people shoot it briefly at occasional events. And if you decide to become a Class III firearm owner, you are consenting to BATFE coming to your home at any time without appointment to inspect the weapon(s) and your safe storage practices and facilities.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> That AK47 is semiautomatic, not a machine gun.
> 
> Besides he didn't 'get' it. They let him hold it for a few seconds, and you can be quite sure it wasn't loaded. That video seems staged as fuck.
> 
> If you want to legally purchase an actual machine gun, you'll have to first apply to BATFE for a Class III permit, go through their Class III background check (not the usual background check for gun purchases), pay for the tax stamp if approved, wait a VERY long time before the paperwork actually goes through, and then actually purchase the gun which will in most cases be $20,000 or more. Sometimes much more. There was a law passed in 1986 that banned any further importation of full auto firearms, and sale to civilians of any new full auto firearms. The only 'machine guns' that civilians can buy and sell were already in circulation prior to 1986, so the supply is finite and tightly regulated/supervised by BATFE. Most of them are owned only for collector/investment value, or to make some money off letting people shoot it briefly at occasional events. And if you decide to become a Class III firearm owner, you are consenting to BATFE coming to your home at any time without appointment to inspect the weapon(s) and your safe storage practices and facilities.


The store owner didn't tell the father that he couldn't buy it. If it hadn't been staged, the boy could have walked out with it if he wanted to. Replace the "machine gun" in the previous guy's comment with "semi automatic" then. Just as shocking. You're only arguing over semantics, not meaning. What other civilised country lets children have weapons like that?

I think it is kind of funny that you can't trust an adult to bring a bottle of water on a plane but you can trust a little child with a weapon that can kill dozens of people with one pull of a trigger.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> The store owner didn't tell the father that he couldn't buy it. If it hadn't been staged, the boy could have walked out with it if he wanted to. Replace the "machine gun" in the previous guy's comment with "semi automatic" then. Just as shocking. You're only arguing over semantics, not meaning. What other civilised country lets children have weapons like that?



The difference between semiauto and full auto is definitely not just semantics.

As for that rifle, assuming he passes the background check, _the father_ could purchase it. The child cannot legally own or purchase a firearm. And the only reason the pistol or the AK came into it is because ABC wanted to present that scenario, so you could be shocked.

I was taught to shoot from about that age. I've been using firearms for over 40 years, and in my experience generally the people with the safest innate practices are those who were taught when young.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> The difference between semiauto and full auto is definitely not just semantics.
> 
> As for that rifle, assuming he passes the background check, _the father_ could purchase it. The child cannot legally own or purchase a firearm. And the only reason the pistol or the AK came into it is because ABC wanted to present that scenario, so you could be shocked.
> 
> I was taught to shoot from about that age. I've been using firearms for over 40 years, and in my experience generally the people with the safest innate practices are those who were taught when young.


Sandy Hook was also the nightmare scenario that was never supposed to exist except for shock factor, but here we are


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sandy Hook was also the nightmare scenario that was never supposed to exist except for shock factor, but here we are



The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20 years old, had never been trained in gun safety, stole his mother's rifle and murdered her with it before he murdered a bunch of kids. He broke all kinds of laws to do so, laws which didn't stop him. Quantamcat was complaining of his shock that it could be legal for a parent to purchase a rifle to teach their kids how to shoot and handle firearms safely, and he had earlier mistaken the AK variant rifle in the video for a machine gun. I don't see the connection between your comment and the points we were discussing, unless you're just throwing that out for its own shock value.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20 years old, had never been trained in gun safety, stole his mother's rifle and murdered her with it before he murdered a bunch of kids. He broke all kinds of laws to do so, laws which didn't stop him. Quantamcat was complaining of his shock that it could be legal for a parent to purchase a rifle to teach their kids how to shoot and handle firearms safely, and he had earlier mistaken the AK variant rifle in the video for a machine gun. I don't see the connection between your comment and the points we were discussing, unless you're just throwing that out for its own shock value.


Yeah it isn't relevant to the point I was making, but still, if it hadn't been so easy for the mother to stockpile so many guns, and if there were laws about how they had to be stored, her son might never have gotten ahold of any guns and Sandy Hook might not have happened at all.

But anyway, I'll stay out of this discussion now, I think if it isn't obvious to people right now they'll never get it. So no point continuing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20 years old, had never been trained in gun safety, stole his mother's rifle and murdered her with it before he murdered a bunch of kids. He broke all kinds of laws to do so, laws which didn't stop him. Quantamcat was complaining of his shock that it could be legal for a parent to purchase a rifle to teach their kids how to shoot and handle firearms safely, and he had earlier mistaken the AK variant rifle in the video for a machine gun. I don't see the connection between your comment and the points we were discussing, *unless you're just throwing that out for its own shock value.*


You got me there

No, but in all seriousness, I said it because there is absolutely nothing that is off the table for discussion in trying to crack down on loopholes in our fucked up system, because we have had our collective feet stuffed into our mouths so many times now and _nothing is going to change_


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Yeah it isn't relevant to the point I was making, but still, if it hadn't been so easy for the mother to stockpile so many guns, and if there were laws about how they had to be stored,* her son might never have gotten ahold of any guns* and Sandy Hook might not have happened at all.
> 
> But anyway, I'll stay out of this discussion now, I think if it isn't obvious to people right now they'll never get it. So no point continuing.




He was an adult and old enough to buy the rifle himself. Not the 2 handguns, but the rifle he could've. But you're right that his mother shares the blame for that tragedy, especially considering she had to know how fucked up that dude was.

Back in the 30's my grandfather bought a 12 gauge shotgun from Sears&Roebuck, mail order from their catalog. Delivered right to his door. He was 13 years old. I hunted with that shotgun for a couple years in high school. The gun laws in effect then were quite minimal, yet these 'mass shooting' type events were extremely rare. Gang violence during Prohibition was the closest thing. Until 1934 you could even buy a Thompson submachine gun by mail order. The guns haven't changed or gotten more deadly - the people have.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> The guns haven't changed or gotten more deadly - the people have.


Ok, one last reply. Did people in Australia suddenly get less deadly between 1996 and the 2000s when the homicide rate dropped considerably following gun law reforms? It isn't people to blame. See this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26396147/

This is the summary results and conclusions, but you can read the whole study from the link above (Edit: just realised you'd have to pay to see the whole thing, sorry).


> RESULTS: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.
> 
> CONCLUSIONS: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.


----------



## th3joker (Oct 5, 2017)

This happened when i was about 2 miles away from mandalay bay. The morning after i got in my mario cosplay and when and filled my truck with cases of water. I then donated my time and energy loading trucks with the supplys stock piled at the blood banks. Ive been a emotional mess and dehydrated from tears. I made some art for a memorial on the strip u may have seen. A heart with angel wings and LoVe below it.  Ive been ralling my local cosplay groups to go to the hospitals and cheer up the wounded.


----------



## Gizametalman (Oct 5, 2017)

@Hanafuda:
My point was to actually prove how easy is for a child to acquire guns. If you're just stupid enough to say: "Stupid, the kids aren't buying them, their parents are" then you have something wrong with your statement.
If you're stupid enough to say: "Stupid, he isn't holding an automatic, learn the difference" then once again you have something wrong.
If you're stupid enough to say: "My parents gave me guns when I was a child, and I've hunted with them" while at the same time claiming there's nothing wrong with children acquiring any sort of guns, then you can't come here saying that there isn't a real problem.

And in general, you just CAN'T say that: Oh, I feel sorry for what it happened in Las Vegas and Sandy Hook, shame on the KID WHO LEARNED TO SHOOT THANKS TO HIS PARENT WHO GAVE HIM A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Now tell me, isn't that a REAL MENTAL PROBLEM WITH MOST AMERICANS who defends the idea of CHILDREN LEARNING TO SHOOT, AND SOCIETY ACQUIRING WEAPONS?

That's just hypocrisy. Feeling "sad" for scenarios you've been taught to accept and promote with your stupid laws.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

th3joker said:


> This happened when i was about 2 miles away from mandalay bay. The morning after i got in my mario cosplay and when and filled my truck with cases of water. I then donated my time and energy loading trucks with the supplys stock piled at the blood banks. Ive been a emotional mess and dehydrated from tears. I made some art for a memorial on the strip u may have seen. A heart with angel wings and LoVe below it.  Ive been ralling my local cosplay groups to go to the hospitals and cheer up the wounded.


That's awful, I'm so sorry you had to be part of it!! It's good you got to help though.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2017)

I plan to respond, guys, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. Past 2am here, need to sleep.


----------



## Gizametalman (Oct 5, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I plan to respond, guys, but it'll have to wait till tomorrow. Past 2am here, need to sleep.


Was planning to be waiting for your response, but now that you told us you're going to tomorrow, I think I'll rest for today. Thank you very much for letting us know. Seriously, I don't know what I would do not knowing if you were going to respond 
/s


----------



## Polopop123 (Oct 5, 2017)

Gun Laws will do nothing. If people really want to shoot up a place they will do anything they can to get the guns illegally. Illegailising drugs didn’t stop junkies from taking drugs so why should it stop terrorists?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 5, 2017)

Polopop123 said:


> Gun Laws will do nothing. If people really want to shoot up a place they will do anything they can to get the guns illegally. Illegailising drugs didn’t stop junkies from taking drugs so why should it stop terrorists?


Gun laws have done a lot in other countries, but for America I'm inclined to agree with you because of the number of guns already out in the wild.  The least we could do is cut down on legal magazine size, though, you don't need 100 rounds (or even 50) to hunt deer.  Also bumpstocks that modify semis to full auto are probably a step too far.  We can't keep up the arms race forever, cops have fucking tanks again thanks to Jeff Sessions.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

Polopop123 said:


> Gun Laws will do nothing. If people really want to shoot up a place they will do anything they can to get the guns illegally. Illegailising drugs didn’t stop junkies from taking drugs so why should it stop terrorists?





Xzi said:


> Gun laws have done a lot in other countries, but for America I'm inclined to agree with you because of the number of guns already out in the wild.  The least we could do is cut down on legal magazine size, though, you don't need 100 rounds (or even 50) to hunt deer.  Also bumpstocks that modify semis to full auto are probably a step too far.  We can't keep up the arms race forever, cops have fucking tanks again thanks to Jeff Sessions.


As part of the gun law reforms, Australia did a gun buyback, paying people market price for their newly illegal weapons then destroying them, which solved the problem of there being too many guns in the wild. The same thing could be done in the U.S.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

th3joker said:


> This happened when i was about 2 miles away from mandalay bay. The morning after i got in my mario cosplay and when and filled my truck with cases of water. I then donated my time and energy loading trucks with the supplys stock piled at the blood banks. Ive been a emotional mess and dehydrated from tears. I made some art for a memorial on the strip u may have seen. A heart with angel wings and LoVe below it.  Ive been ralling my local cosplay groups to go to the hospitals and cheer up the wounded.



You are a true hero, sir. 
I always find it heatwarming to know people like you are out there.

On a second note, I'm pretty sure we can all agree it was a complete moron who did this and that is was completely moronic he could so easily get a hold of assault rifles.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Gun laws have done a lot in other countries, but for America I'm inclined to agree with you because of the number of guns already out in the wild.  The least we could do is cut down on legal magazine size, though, you don't need 100 rounds (or even 50) to hunt deer.  Also bumpstocks that modify semis to full auto are probably a step too far.  We can't keep up the arms race forever, cops have fucking tanks again thanks to Jeff Sessions.



Offer a monitery reward for them to be handed in, simple fix. And there's no way to argue America can't afford it.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 5, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Offer a monitery reward for them to be handed in, simple fix. And there's no way to argue America can't afford it.


Republicans argue that every time it's something they don't want to happen.  And Republicans control everything right now.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 5, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Republicans argue that every time it's something they don't want to happen.  And Republicans control everything right now.


Probably more that the NRA owns the Republicans


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Probably more that the NRA owns the Republicans


Isn't their membership only 4 million? Pretty small imo.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Isn't their membership only 4 million? Pretty small imo.


2 million I think, but they're incredibly vocal


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 5, 2017)

In case anyone wondered why Americans care about guns so much.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 2 million I think, but they're incredibly vocal



That is a serious vocal minority then.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Subtle Demise said:


> In case anyone wondered why Americans care about guns so much.




I don't understand why Americans hold their constitution to such high regard.


----------



## BlastedGuy9905 (Oct 5, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> The thing is we don't even know why the guy did it yet. It's so screwed up.


apparently he was suicidal, and he didnt care because he jumped off the building. now it's even more screwed up.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 5, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I don't understand why Americans hold their constitution to such high regard.


A constitution is supposed to protect the basic rights of the people in a nation from its government. Unfortunately, not that long ago a lot of unconstitutional things have been happening, and it has become, according to George W. Bush anyway, "just a goddamn piece of paper."


----------



## Veho (Oct 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 2 million I think, but they're incredibly vocal


To be fair, a lot of NRA members are rich and influential weapons manufacturers and dealers, so they have rather more clout than an average citizen.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> A constitution is supposed to protect the basic rights of the people in a nation from its government. Unfortunately, not that long ago a lot of unconstitutional things have been happening, and it has become, according to George W. Bush anyway, "just a goddamn piece of paper."



Well it is isn't it? And sometimes "basic" rights need to be removed for the greater good. Or at least try to make sure it's regulated and not just anyone can get a gun.
Also, I'm not saying the entirety of the constitution is stupid, just I don't understand it's arms policy.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 5, 2017)

The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure the American people always have access to weapons in the event that the government becomes tyrannical and attempts to oppress its people.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 5, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well it is isn't it? And sometimes "basic" rights need to be removed for the greater good. Or at least try to make sure it's regulated and not just anyone can get a gun.
> Also, I'm not saying the entirety of the constitution is stupid, just I don't understand it's arms policy.




Don't tell me I can't buy a van just because some madman took it and ran it into a coward of people. Though I will agree we may need to look into gun training just to prevent this.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure the American people always have access to weapons in the event that the government becomes tyrannical and attempts to oppress its people.


The government has tanks and nukes

Good job going up against those if they decide to put you in their crosshairs


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Don't tell me I can't buy a van just because some madman took it and ran it into a coward of people. Though I will agree we may need to look into gun training just to prevent this.


That's not what I'm saying. But what I will say is that a gun can kill far more people than a van. 
But not everyone should be allowed to get a gun, that's stupid imo.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> The government has tanks and nukes
> 
> Good job going up against those if they decide to put you in their crosshairs



That's why I find that argument silly. No matter how many people have guns, a skilled army could kill 100 million gun owners without breaking a sweat.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 5, 2017)

You speak for those who actually operate those weapons. Chain of command is broken in civil war. Lines are drawn, and sides are chosen. There would be military officials on both sides.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

As far as "skilled army....100 million gun owners".... The Middle East conflict has proven that an ideal is more threatening than any weapon, not to mention we regularly lose soldiers to those 100 million gun owners in the region. How much have the tanks and nukes helped there?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This isn't just about common sense weapons laws, it also crosses into the threshold of a persons right to ensure their own security.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> You speak for those who actually operate those weapons. Chain of command is broken in civil war. Lines are drawn, and sides are chosen. There would be military officials on both sides.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Erm what?
Also, that's because nukes and tanks aren't used very much against the people of America.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 5, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Erm what?
> Also, that's because nukes and tanks aren't used very much against the people of America.


What's hard to understand? The 2nd Amendment is unspokenly a right for the people to protect themselves, mainly from tyranny.

The LDS church almost started a civil war at one point with this in mind.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> What's hard to understand? The 2nd Amendment is unspokenly a right for the people to protect themselves, mainly from tyranny.
> 
> The LDS church almost started a civil war at one point with this in mind.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War



It's not about protecting yourself. It's about using guns to do so.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> As far as "skilled army....100 million gun owners".... The Middle East conflict has proven that an ideal is more threatening than any weapon, not to mention we regularly lose soldiers to those 100 million gun owners in the region. How much have the tanks and nukes helped there?


You do realize that the American army is what is creating that "ideal", right? By slaughtering defenseless citizens (with, guess what, tanks, airstrikes and drone strikes) that have no form of protection, we are actively creating an environment in which it is preferable to join an extremist community in return for protection against the hostile invaders that are there under the guise of "upholding peace"



> This isn't just about common sense weapons laws, it also crosses into the threshold of a persons right to ensure their own security.


"Right to self protection" is all well and good, except guns have been proven time and time again to do the exact opposite. All they do increase the risk that they will be used to violate someone _else's _right to safety


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You do realize that the American army is what is creating that "ideal", right? By slaughtering defenseless citizens (with, guess what, tanks, airstrikes and drone strikes) that have no form of protection, we are actively creating an environment in which it is preferable to join an extremist community in return for protection against the hostile invaders that are there under the guise of "upholding peace"
> 
> 
> "Right to self protection" is all well and good, except guns have been proven time and time again to do the exact opposite. All they do increase the risk that they will be used to violate someone _else's _right to safety


1. The point wasn't about the Middle East. It was about what a group of armed individuals who support an ideal are capable of.

2. I'm not saying that gun control isn't an issue that needs addressing, I'm explaining why the 2nd Amendment was written in.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You do realize that the American army is what is creating that "ideal", right? By slaughtering defenseless citizens (with, guess what, tanks, airstrikes and drone strikes) that have no form of protection, we are actively creating an environment in which it is preferable to join an extremist community in return for protection against the hostile invaders that are there under the guise of "upholding peace"
> 
> 
> "Right to self protection" is all well and good, except guns have been proven time and time again to do the exact opposite. All they do increase the risk that they will be used to violate someone _else's _right to safety


That way of the thinking is why we have these issues.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 5, 2017)

If there was a revolution I would fight in it. Also many soldiers in the military would fight for the US citizens in the event of an uprising. I believe they're called "oath keepers" or something like that.  Also there are state militias that train for another revolutionary war. Not to mention outside interference on both sides, corporate interests, guerilla warfare, etc. The colonists were outgunned too, so it doesn't matter who has the bigger guns. Also, if done correctly, there would not be a full scale war, but rather several tactical strikes by small teams to break the chain of command from the top down.
Guns may be dangerous in the wrong hands, but it's a small price to pay, IMO. In places where guns are outlawed, the government can do whatever they want, because there is no threat of push back from the people.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Oct 5, 2017)

https://twitter.com/ConlonGavin/status/915726346264948736


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 5, 2017)

This is kind of on topic, but what ever happened to the stories I heard when I was younger of heroic citizens saving lives with guns? I haven't heard any in a couple years and I used to hear them all the time. All I hear anymore is terrible shootings. People haven't changed that much, have they?

Anyways, I honestly think that part of the military would break off and join the citizens in an revolution movement if the government took away the 2nd amendment/ if things got really bad with the government, but I'm not going to go fully into that argument.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> 1. The point wasn't about the Middle East. It was about what a group of armed individuals who support an ideal are capable of.


Literally the only thing ISIS has is the ability to operate underground and fear tactics. Whenever they show themselves the opposing armies annihilate them, along with any civilians who get in their way. So, yeah, they do have power, but only a fraction of it is from the weaponry they possess


Memoir said:


> That way of the thinking is why we have these issues.


And the US invasion is what fueled that way of thinking, creating the issues that serve as an excuse to endlessly funnel more US solders into the area

Cyclical cause/effect devices are amazing, aren't they *muffled crying laughter*


----------



## Polopop123 (Oct 5, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> As part of the gun law reforms, Australia did a gun buyback, paying people market price for their newly illegal weapons then destroying them, which solved the problem of there being too many guns in the wild. The same thing could be done in the U.S.


Look at France. Serious gun laws. Had numerous terrorist attacks in the past years, either guns, explosives or trucks. Gun laws do nothing to stop terrorists, they are out there for one sole purpose and some stupid gun law isn’t gonna stop them

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If anything, to solve the homocide rate, America should focus on the black community and their violence tendencies. Go to black neighborhoods, improve it, keep them in school and divert them from crime. Making up %50+ of homocide despite making up merely 13% of the population isn’t something that should be looked over, like it has been by BLM, and if they actually cared about black lives they’d take eye to this. As blacks kill blacks more than any other race


----------



## aykay55 (Oct 5, 2017)

It is staged you idiots. The show is about seeing what other people do. The son, father, woman complaining, and cashier are actors. The other people are just random guys walking in, the creators actually got a good track record when it comes to honesty.


Hanafuda said:


> That AK47 is semiautomatic, not a machine gun.
> 
> Besides he didn't 'get' it. They let him hold it for a few seconds, and you can be quite sure it wasn't loaded. That video seems staged as fuck.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Remember guys:

Speak softly, and carry a big stick.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Oct 5, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Literally the only thing ISIS has is the ability to operate underground and fear tactics. Whenever they show themselves the opposing armies annihilate them, along with any civilians who get in their way. So, yeah, they do have power, but only a fraction of it is from the weaponry they possess
> 
> And the US invasion is what fueled that way of thinking, creating the issues that serve as an excuse to endlessly funnel more US solders into the area
> 
> Cyclical cause/effect devices are amazing, aren't they *muffled crying laughter*



I'm inclined to agree. But I don't want to put all the blame on the USA. It was the rest of the world that let them with no consequence.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2017)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm inclined to agree. But I don't want to put all the blame on the USA. It was the rest of the world that let them with no consequence.


I mean the U.N. actively tries, but it's difficult to do much in the way of restrictions when we're on of the nation's that has full veto authority


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 6, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> don't worry guys, i have this everyday where i live, with time you will get used to it : )


And is that supposed to be something I am _supposed _to get used to on a day to day basis? 
Sometimes I question your logic. This is no laughing matter!


----------



## BlueFox gui (Oct 6, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> And is that supposed to be something I am _supposed _to get used to on a day to day basis?
> Sometimes I question your logic. This is no laughing matter!


not laughing, just to break the tension i guess, sorry if i exaggerated


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 6, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> not laughing, just to break the tension i guess, sorry if i exaggerated


I respect such. But in times such as these, and topics such as these; Sarcasm may not compute. You might be taken _not _lightly.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Oct 6, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> I respect such. But in times such as these, and topics such as these; Sarcasm may not compute. You might be taken _not _lightly.


yea ikr sorry


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

Did you know that the U.S. has 31% of the world's mass murders despite comprising 5% of the world's population? That's even taking into account unstable and wartorn nations.
I know I said I'd quit replying but it is so hard


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Oct 6, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> yea ikr sorry


Then why did you say it?


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Then why did you say it?


He didn't realise at the time how it would sound


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 6, 2017)

I think the picture of Stephen Paddock's dead body is the death photo I've seen the most. Every couple hours when visiting /b/.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Oct 6, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Then why did you say it?


i didn't thought people would take seriously, even thought some people liked the comment .-.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Ok, one last reply. Did people in Australia suddenly get less deadly between 1996 and the 2000s when the homicide rate dropped considerably following gun law reforms? It isn't people to blame. See this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26396147/
> 
> This is the summary results and conclusions, but you can read the whole study from the link above (Edit: just realised you'd have to pay to see the whole thing, sorry).




Well, my level of concern over remaining engaged in the conversation diminished somewhat since last night, since my only reason for stepping in was to point out that the AK variant rifle in the video wasn't, as a post above stated, a machine gun. But, I said I'd respond to this thing about Australia.

The short answer is, there are just waaay too many factors going on to be able to attribute anything as a definite effect of Australia's gun law reforms.

And for the long answer as to why, I'm going to defer to Michelle Ye Hee Lee of the Washington Post. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nificantly-after-australian-gun-control-laws/

Now, Ms Lee's a liberal. And this 'factcheck' by her was done for the purpose of trashing a statement by Ted Cruz (and rightly so) that sexual assaults in Australia had "skyrocketed" since the gun law changes, and that women were getting raped because they couldn't defend themselves. If you read the article, she is correct that sexual assault rates did not 'skyrocket,' and she's correct that Cruz doesn't have any facts to back up his claim that more women are being victimized because they don't have guns. But while it's not a skyrocket increase, the Washington Post's numbers do show a 135% increase in sexual assaults from 1993 to 2008. By 2014 the rate had settled to 127% the 1993 level. But, as the article also acknowledges, sexual assault is not an easy crime to keep stats on anyway, since a high percentage of incidents go unreported.

So, the purpose of her article was to throw Pinocchio's at Cruz for making claims about definite effects of Australia's gun law reforms. She did, and she was correct. She should also throw some down on President Obama and Hillary Clinton, though, for conversely claiming (as you did) that the cause and effect are certain and all effects are wonderful. But even if she gave Obama and Hillary a pass, Ms. Lee doesn't agree with either side when it comes to Australia's situation, and she backs it up well.

First, there's a significant cultural difference between Australia and the USA, so it cannot be inferred that any discernible effects of the law changes in Australia would have a similar effect anywhere else.

Second, despite international belief that Australia 'banned guns,' the reality is that only about 20% of the guns affected by the changes were even turned in. And many other guns weren't affected at all. Of about 20 million guns in Australia before the "ban" took effect in 1996, about 650,000 were turned in. When they enacted another 'ban' against handguns in 2003, only 70,000 were turned in. Now, you can of course say, "better than nothing." But the reality is, the majority of Australia's gun owners didn't comply. According to Reason.com, there is now a violent black market for the 'banned' guns in Australia. (LINK)

Now, she moves to the interesting part .. how about gun crimes? Gun homicides. Ms Lee acknowledges that gun deaths were already on a downward slide in Australia before the gun law reforms took effect. That's an effect that has been seen in developed countries all over world since the 1990's ... gradual but real reductions in violent crime, across the board. (I chalk it up to the internet. Really.) Gun homicides in the USA, for example, peaked around 1993 during the crack cocaine epidemic. The US Congress passes the "Assault Weapon Ban" the next year, and people freaked out and started buying more guns. The Assault Weapons Ban only lasted 10 years, but the gun buying kept on going. But what happened to the gun homicide rate in the USA while the number of guns increased dramatically? It went down, dramatically.






Source for data: 2012 Congressional Research Service Report (LINK)


So, more guns = less gun homicides, right? That's what the _real _gun nuts like to say, but no. This doesn't show causation, only trends. But it does show that more guns in a somewhat stable population doesn't necessarily mean more gun murders. Or at least, it hasn't in the US.

So the gun homicide rate in the USA dropped by 49% between 1993 and 2014. That's awesome. Did you know that? The murder rate in the USA was actually much worse in the past.





Source for data: 2012 Congressional Research Service Report (LINK)

Yes unfortunately over the last 25 years in particular these mass shootings have become a thing. But also happening in Europe. (More died in mass shootings in France in 2015 alone than in the US during Obama's entire 8 years as President.) Yes we also have a real problem with the gun crime rate in certain cities. But a 49% in gun homicides over 20 years? That pretty good, isn't it? 

So, with those gun law reforms, how did Australia do when it came to gun homicides??







Sorry, but I'm not seeing this incredible effect you were talking about.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

I didn't read all of your reply, but one factual error - only some classes of guns became illegal, and the total number of guns decreased by 20%. Not 20% of the types that became illegal.

And in terms of homicides - the graph is quite misleading. It has picked a point to begin from (one that frames the reduction as high as possible), and isn't showing actual numbers, just percent change from that point. I would argue that there are so many guns they've reached saturation point and aren't having more effect. E.g. You have a sponge in a bowl of water. You add more water, and the sponge doesn't get any wetter. Your argument is that water has no effect on wetness. But, you have to take away 3/4 of the water before you can start seeing the effect of water on the sponge. If homicide rates are going down, it's the perfect time for gun laws - Australia's rates were going down, and the gun law reforms accelerated that decline. The last graphic I don't think means what you think it means. The Y axis has no label. My guess is it is percentage of homicides, so it doesn't show whether there was a decline or rise in the actual number at all. If that's the case, this graph is showing there is little substitution effect - an argument favoured by gun enthusiasts is that if you take away the guns, people who want to kill will just use knives or something instead and it won't lower homicide numbers. This graphic shows that the percentages stay the same, you don't have a huge amount of.people switching to knives instead of guns. Once you remove the guns, the homicides go down, the killers just don't kill rather than switch to knives instead.

Edit: in the title it says "%". So what I said is correct, and this graph only proves my points, not yours. Take away guns, and people just don't kill instead of switching to the next available weapon.

Edit 2: just in case the maths is tricky. Say on day 1 there were ten homicides, 4 with guns and 6 with knives. On day 2 there were 5 homicides, 2 with guns and 3 with knives. On both days the gun rate is 40% and the knife rate 60%, so a graph like the one you added would show them as steady. When in fact the homicide rate had halved. Likewise if the homicide rate went up, you can't tell from that graph. The graph has zero information about the numbers of homicides, only what proportion were done with guns or with knives.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> I didn't read all of your reply, but one factual error - only some classes of guns became illegal, and the total number of guns decreased by 20%. Not 20% of the types that became illegal.



Tell it to the Washington Post. The data is in the article I linked, with cited sources.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Yes unfortunately over the last 25 years in particular these mass shootings have become a thing. But also happening in Europe. (More died in mass shootings in France in 2015 alone than in the US during Obama's entire 8 years as President.) Yes we also have a real problem with the gun crime rate in certain cities. But a 49% in gun homicides over 20 years? That pretty good, isn't it?


The only thing that turned up that was relevant when I searched that was this article: http://gunsnfreedom.com/france-had-...he-us-in-all-of-obamas-term-as-president/5894

Which, a) if you'll notice is titled "gunsnfreedom.com," which almost instantly disqualifies it as a non-biased source, and b) is absolute bullshit, because according to the Gun Violence Archive, the total number of gun casualties in the US in 2015 alone was 27,038


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Tell it to the Washington Post. The data is in the article I linked, with cited sources.


You failed to read your own article, or substituted what you wanted to see when you did read it.



> Australia also created a compulsory national buyback program through which the government purchased 650,000 prohibited firearms, in a country of about 20 million. *This represented about 20 percent of the stock of guns in Australia*.



As a reminder this is what you said:


> the reality is that only about 20% of the guns affected by the changes were even turned in


 which is wrong.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The only thing that turned up that was relevant when I searched that was this article: http://gunsnfreedom.com/france-had-...he-us-in-all-of-obamas-term-as-president/5894
> 
> Which, a) if you'll notice is titled "gunsnfreedom.com," which almost instantly disqualifies it as a non-biased source, and b) is absolute bullshit, because according to the Gun Violence Archive, the total number of gun casualties in the US in 2015 alone was 27,038



The stat was in reference to mass shooting events only. Of course that can depend on how the term is defined. There was that reddit-based 'masshootingtracker' site that was getting quoted by a lot of news sources a few years ago, but their definition was different from the government's and they were including BB guns, any injuries that accompanied a shooting as a qualifying victim to make it a mass shooting, etc. The claim that there were more mass shooting casualties in France in 2015 than throughout the Obama years in the US is from the Crime Prevention Research Center. They document their research at these links:

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/02/f...during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

You can discount it if you like, it was just an aside. The real point was that Australia's gun law reforms have not produced definitive, isolated results for either side of the debate.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Quantumcat said:


> You failed to read your own article, or substituted what you wanted to see when you did read it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You're correct. I took the 20 million to be the total number of firearms at the time. It was the total population.

Still doesn't change that Australia has seen a 20% reduction in gun homicides over the same time span the USA has seen a 49% reduction, while Australia reduced the number of guns by 20% while the US increased the number of guns by 50%+.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> The stat was in reference to mass shooting events only. Of course that can depend on how the term is defined. There was that reddit-based 'masshootingtracker' site that was getting quoted by a lot of news sources a few years ago, but their definition was different from the government's


The definition actually disqualifies a lot of mass shootings in America - it doesn't count any involving multiple members of one family or group (gang violence for example). There are a lot of those. This year, there were 273 in the broadest definition (shooting and killing four or more in the same general time and location) and 9 in the narrowest which is what you're talking about (in public place, random victims not a particular group or family)

From CNN Health: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/index.html


> *If you go with the raw numbers ...*
> 
> 
> According to the Gun Violence Archive, which compiles data from shooting incidents, a "mass shooting" is any incident in which a gunman ...
> ...



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> The real point was that Australia's gun law reforms have not produced definitive, isolated results for either side of the debate.


They have ---- that was the point of the study I linked in the beginning, to decide one way or the other, rather than people arguing based on emotions. They did proper statistical analysis.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> You can discount it if you like, it was just an aside. The real point was that Australia's gun law reforms have not produced definitive, isolated results for either side of the debate.


I'm going to discount it, because it's pure unadulterated propaganda. And GVA isn't just "some Reddit group," it's an independent group that meticulously goes through reports every day and publishes them with the original source and report on a comprehensive spreadsheet

And, for what its worth, the reason that the US has never produced any conclusive evidence on the federal level is because the NRA has effectively kneecapped any ability on the behalf of the Center for Disease Control to do ANY form of research on the subject whatsoever. Which is a HUGE, GLARING problem and should be seen as a reason to investigate it further in and of itself


----------



## SG854 (Oct 6, 2017)

Wow, there's a debate going on. Its to be expected. I haven't been on this thread since I made my last comment.
I don't even know if I want to engage, i'm too lazy to debate right now.

The shooting though was sad. I've seen videos of Mexican cartels cut peoples head off with chainsaw and blades. I've seen ISIS also cut peoples heads off.
And I still can't get use to people dying. Its just sad.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

The articles you linked were interesting - having Norway, Finland, and Slovakia near the top. I'll have to think about this.

Edit: here's my thoughts

1. Norway had only 1 mass shooting where they managed to kill 77 people, and has a very low population. So that is explained.
2. Finland had 2 attacks with 8 people killed (6 and 2) and again has a low population.
3. The entry for Slovakia is incorrect. It says 8, but there was only 1 mass shooting and it killed 7. Again low population
4. There were actually 9 not 11 people killed in Israel, wrong again. Over only 2 attacks
5. I can't find any shootings for Switzerland over the time period, I found one in 2001 and one in 1912. So the data in the table seems to be wrong here

These countries have been hand-picked for the table because they have very low populations. It is the norm for all of these countries to experience 1 or 2 mass shootings over the 5 year period, and the ones with very small populations ended up on top of the list because it is sorted by deaths per 1,000,000. Just scan down the column with numbers of shootings. There's one entry that really jumps out at you (38 in the US compared to 1-3 for all others).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> The articles you linked were interesting - having Norway, Finland, and Slovakia near the top. I'll have to think about this.


I have a theory that's not based on anything scientific if that is in fact the case; the populations in those countries are all significantly denser than in Australia or the US, so even if it weren't as big of an issue it would be exacerbated by potential for damage done in a crowded environment


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I have a theory that's not based on anything scientific if that is in fact the case; the populations in those countries are all significantly denser than in Australia or the US, so even if it weren't as big of an issue it would be exacerbated by potential for damage done in a crowded environment




Well that certainly holds water. I don't have stats handy but I've seen data before that if you isolate 6 major cities in the US the gun homicide rate is as bad as anywhere in the world (Brazil, Honduras, wherever). And if you take the rest of the USA excluding those cities, the gun homicide rate rivals any 'good' place in the world.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 6, 2017)

Gizametalman said:


> @Hanafuda:
> My point was to actually prove how easy is for a child to acquire guns. If you're just stupid enough to say: "Stupid, the kids aren't buying them, their parents are" then you have something wrong with your statement.
> If you're stupid enough to say: "Stupid, he isn't holding an automatic, learn the difference" then once again you have something wrong.
> If you're stupid enough to say: "My parents gave me guns when I was a child, and I've hunted with them" while at the same time claiming there's nothing wrong with children acquiring any sort of guns, then you can't come here saying that there isn't a real problem.
> ...



Ah darn it, I'm getting into a debate, sigh.

If owning guns was a problem and it increases shootings then why aren't girls the ones doing the shootings?

The common thing most school shootings have is that the boys grew up in dad deprived homes.
Also in prison populations, the majority of inmates grew up without their dads.

Anthony Sims last face book post was I wish I had a father. He's the Oakland Killer.
Elliot Rodger's father was barely involved in his life.

There has been 1 school shooting per week since Sandy Hook. 

Usually shootings are blamed on guns, family values, or mental health problems. But look at girls. Girls are not the ones doing the shootings. They live in the same families, with the same family values, have similar mental health problems, they see the same violence on tv and have access to the same guns, and yet they are not doing shootings. 

School shooting are usually white boys acting out their sense of hopelessness and its also their method of committing suicide. 
While black on black homicides is blacks acting out their helplessness. They join gangs to get some sort of a male role model they didn't get at home. 

Before age 9 boys and girls commit suicide equally. Then at Age 10-14 boys are twice as likely. Age 15-19 they are 4 times as likely. And age 20-14 they are 6 times as likely. The thing you start to see in this trend is that suicide rates increase when the male role starts to become visible and clear to boys. Suicide is boys lack to fulfill their gender role. Men commit suicide at higher rates then women in every single country in the world except for one Middle Eastern country. 

Boys go from dad deprived homes to schools with male deprived teachers. Boys do better with male teachers. Feminization of education contributes to boys school problems according to studies done by the UN. 

Boys nowadays have lack of purpose in life. Before the males roles were to be a warrior or the sole bread winner, this gave them purpose.
Now the warrior role is not as useful and men are not the sole bread winners anymore.

Feminism expanded girls purpose in life from only being able to raise children, to being able to work to earn money, raise children, or some combination of both. 
Mens choices are go to work, go to work, go to work. Or be a loser. Men have a lack of choice. During the recession high male suicide rates were partly due to stricter gender roles to be providers that were enforced on men. 

Women gender roles are more flexible. No one came to free men from their roles. Men are years behind women in this sense. 
There have been affirmative action to increase women in STEM, but none to increase men in the caring and secretary positions

The Family is the building block of society. People learn and gain values from their family, good or bad values. People that have children out of wedlock are more likely to have children grow up in single parent homes, which usually results in dad being out of the picture. 

Over 100 years of research has shown that growing up in single parent homes, specifically mother only homes, causes problems for children. 
Growing up in single parent homes kids are 


More likely to have mental health and physical health problems.
More likely to be poor and earn less money.
Girls are more likely to be pregnant as teens.
Boys are more likely to get into crime and commit homicides.
More likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.
More likely to have learning disabilities and not graduate school.
Empathy doesn't come from being empathized with. Too much of that creates narcism. Empathy comes from boundary enforcement and enforcing the respecting of others boundaries, which usually the fathers do. Kids are also more likely to have attention deficit disorder growing up in mother only homes. Both parents are needed in the child's life to create a balancing act. Mothers empathizing helps children care about themselves, since the focus is on the children, while fathers boundary enforcement helps kids respect others. 

If you want to start with fixing problems in society then start at the home. And expand the male sense of purpose in life. Also most people aren't doing the shootings only a very small minority. You have more boys holding doors open so that people can escape, and more boys diving in front of bullets to protect others, yet you hardly hear about these.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Ah darn it, I'm getting into a debate, sigh.
> 
> If owning guns was a problem and it increases shootings then why aren't girls the ones doing the shootings?
> 
> ...


Those are problems that took hundreds of years to develop and would likely take decades to solve. Meanwhile, as you said, there's a school shooting every week. Let's save some lives right now by reducing the number of guns in the country so it isn't so easy.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Ah darn it, I'm getting into a debate, sigh.
> 
> If owning guns was a problem and it increases shootings then why aren't girls the ones doing the shootings?
> 
> ...


This takes the cake for the grossest comment I've ever read regarding both gender roles and gun control


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This takes the cake for the grossest comment I've ever read regarding both gender roles and gun control


I think it's fair enough but it's not something that can be fixed overnight. If someone has a bleeding slashed leg you don't squabble about whether the barbed wire should or shouldn't be there, you give them a bandage and worry about the wire later :-p


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 6, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> I think it's fair enough but it's not something that can be fixed overnight. If someone has a bleeding slashed leg you don't squabble about whether the barbed wire should or shouldn't be there, you give them a bandage and worry about the wire later :-p


They probably had good points but I the only thing I got out of the underlying message was "men shoot people because women are taking their place in society and they can't control their own actions because of that"


----------



## DarthDub (Oct 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They probably had good points but I the only thing I got out of the underlying message was "men shoot people because women are taking their place in society and they can't control their own actions because of that"


How dare you assume their gender?! /jk
Man, I wish that having stricter gun control laws would work, but the las vegas shooter was a multimillionaire. How do you stop a rich person?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> How dare you assume their gender?! /jk
> Man, I wish that having stricter gun control laws would work, but the las vegas shooter was a multimillionaire. How do you stop a rich person?


Background checks and searchable registries

I mean really after the first 10 guns or so weapons dealers should have started asking questions, let alone >40. But because of the good ol' NRA, it's illegal to digitize gun registries


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2017)

You guys do realize that these "bumpfire" stocks the shooter had on his rifles were reviewed by the BATFE on multiple occasions during Obama's presidency and given the okay for unregulated sale, yes? Were those BATFE rulings wrong? Should they have declared bumpfire stocks a de facto machine gun back in 2010 when they had the chance, before they were even on sale to the public?

If your answer is yes, then isn't BATFE and the Obama administration partly to blame? Everyone on TV seems to be onboard the 'ban it!' train, it's so obvious, right? All it would have taken was a letter from BATFE and bumpfire stocks wouldn't have been economically viable as a product (because of the high cost of obtaining a Class III permit just for a cheap piece of molded plastic).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> You guys do realize that these "bumpfire" stocks the shooter had on his rifles were reviewed by the BATFE on multiple occasions during Obama's presidency and given the okay for unregulated sale, yes? Were those BATFE rulings wrong? Should they have declared bumpfire stocks a de facto machine gun back in 2010 when they had the chance, before they were even on sale to the public?
> 
> If your answer is yes, then isn't BATFE and the Obama administration partly to blame? Everyone on TV seems to be onboard the 'ban it!' train, it's so obvious, right? All it would have taken was a letter from BATFE and bumpfire stocks wouldn't have been economically viable as a product (because of the high cost of obtaining a Class III permit just for a cheap piece of molded plastic).


Yes


----------



## osirisjem (Oct 7, 2017)

I think America needs moar guns.
To make things safer.
L 
O 
L


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yes




Yep. The media and all over the internet is pointing fingers at the NRA (more than the shooter, even), but those bumpfire stocks were on store shelves because of the government's fuckup. And many people died. There could have still been a shooting, with many deaths. Not anywhere near as many though, I think.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 7, 2017)

Did pressure from the NRA have anything to do with them becoming legal?

Anyway I thought of an interesting analogy. Are you in favour of all countries having nuclear warheads just in case the UN goes rogue and decides to persecute each country, so they have the ability to stand up for themselves? It is interesting that the US is against North Korea having nuclear weapons but is ok with its citizens having equivalent weapons (in a person to person context rather than country to country) to defend themselves.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Yep. The media and all over the internet is pointing fingers at the NRA (more than the shooter, even), but those bumpfire stocks were on store shelves because of the government's fuckup. And many people died. There could have still been a shooting, with many deaths. Not anywhere near as many though, I think.


That said

42 guns (last I checked), which was made possible by the NRA backing laws preventing databases

Don't make the NRA out to be the good guys


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That said
> 
> 42 guns (last I checked), which was made possible by the NRA backing laws preventing databases
> 
> Don't make the NRA out to be the good guys




All I'm saying is why isn't that angle of the government's contribution to the tragedy getting airtime? Contributory negligence. If BATFE reverses itself and declares bumpstocks illegal now, that's practically an admission of error before. This should be part of what they're talking about.

As for the shooter's guns, he didn't need and probably didn't use that many guns for Las Vegas. How many he owned, how many even that were there in the room, pretty much irrelevant. All that matters is how many he actually used to shoot people. I don't know what the number is, but I would be really surprised to learn he used more than 4-5 of them. Ironically, if he used more than that it was probably because those bumpfire things caused jams. They're impractical junk.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

I'm going to post an opinion here. I know some will disagree.

I think that one Congressman's opinion that Congress lead to this happening is indirectly true. Before you rage, at least hear me out:

The right to bear arms is, to quote rulings: for 'self defense'. Of all the types of guns out there, the only gun you should need for self defense should be a handgun. Shotguns and Rifles are not tools of self defense, but of murder. The sheer difference in destructive power even between a normal handgun and a relatively modern rifle is leagues apart. Even comparing the old flintlock 'handguns' to a rifle from say the American Revolution is a league apart.
Simply put: the point of the amendment is not so you can kill. And it's not for the purpose of maintaining a hobby either.

This comes back to the beginning: it's congress' fault, namely the republicans and the NRA filling their pockets (let's be real people, before anyone argues otherwise, there's a clear and confirmed moneytrail there, and no, I am not a democrat, I am a neutral voter who will vote republican or democrat depending on the needs of this country at the time of an election), for letting these weapons into the wild.

To disable an opponent with a handgun is possible enough. To defend yourself against anything short of certain wild beasts is possible with one. So then, what's the point of having anything more? Well, there isn't. That's my view on this. While I can't fully argue against shotguns as an ideal means of defense against say bears, there is *absolutely no modern need for any form of rifle in civilian hands.*

The modern rifle tend to be mid-long range weapons with far more accuracy, and also on average more destructive force than a handgun due to their larger rounds (see: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-mor...shotgun-and-why/answer/Ben-Skirvin?srid=u7M6e ). Why would such a weapon need to be in civilian hands, when it's clearly meant for more disruptive, destructive use than a handgun, which is the ideal tool for self defense? To carry a rifle anywhere in public is an intended show of hostility and force, hence why they are not usually covered by law to be carried about (kinda like how they banned katanas in Japan, but nobody really is THAT off their rocker about a knife for self defense).

*Why am I writing the above? The easy answer is, were there better restrictions and regulations in place, preventing the obtainment of rifles, then the ability to have launched an attack from 30 odd stories high and hit such a large number with not only such relative accuracy from such a distance, but with such a high casualty rate, would have dropped considerably.
*
I already said this but rifles should not have been in any civilian's hands. I barely appreciate the thought of Shotguns being in civilian hands. Because a rifle was in this man's hand, not only could he kill  about 50, and injure  about 500+, but he did so from a place nobody could quickly respond.

Were he instead forced to a handgun, or even a shotgun, the damage from his 'sniper's nest' would have been vastly inferior. I would estimate not even 10% of the damage would have occurred. This isn't about the morality of whether or not having guns is legal, this is a question of the morality of having certain guns and the damage those guns can cause. Afterall, this same sort of question came up after a certain school shooting.

The question of the 'right to bare arms' can be turned around for those who think it means 'the right to bare any arms'. Under such an interpretation, I could bare a nuclear warhead, for an extreme example, and it would be under my '2nd amendment right', but that would be folly. It is an "arm" (Yes, I'm being semantical, as the writers of the preamble believed more in semantics than the current day American). To quote: "*A* weapon, *arm*, or armament *is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.*" But a nuclear weapon is clearly not an arm we are permitted to bare, so let's not even debate the legality of banning certain weapon types.

So the question is: should the common civilian be able to bare any sort of gun they so please in the name of self defense? My belief is a flat and resounding *NO*. This Las Vegas nightmare is a resounding reason why there needs to be gun restrictions. I personally would love to see a complete ban on all forms of rifles - automatic and semi and the like; along with again a ban on all automatic weapons (it seems the 1994 ban ended 13 years ago...). Neither are the sort of tools a man needs for self defense. They are tools to inflict as much harm to as many as possible before being able to be reacted to for as long as possible.

And any mods that could create similar results should be similarly banned.

As I said above: were this man unable to, or less likely to have obtained rifles and/or their ammo, or any form of mod that made them automatic, this whole tragedy would have been a lot less tragic. But the fact remains that, even were he unable to get bumpstocks, the damage would have still existed. Not as bad, but the damage still would have been worse than had he been restricted to handguns. Those on the scene may have been baring guns and able to disable him had he been forced to closer range himself.

*I do not support banning all firearms - I do support the right to every man to be able to defend himself. To that end, I do not support extreme gun laws banning all firearms. I only support the idea that the age of needing more than relatively close-range weaponry for self-defense is long past.
*
PS: Personally I'd love to see shotguns gone too as they are basically guaranteed kills at their range, which goes against the concept of 'defense' as in deterrence, but you'd need to rework the hunting associations and make them a singular group rather than 20+ different associations throughout the states, and manage their membership and the management of rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes so that mishandling of the weapons becomes a federal offense. It would require a lot of work from the federal government they just wouldn't support. Either way, just restricting rifles and automatics, and mods to emulate them, would do more than enough to heavily prevent another massacre like this.

Edit: I want people to realize one thing: yes, it was the man who did the damage, but the gun enabled him to inflict the volume of damage he did without retaliation. And that is the problem: the lack of defense and retaliation these people had. No different than if a sniper rifle were involved, or on a national scale - a nuke. The gun didn't do the action, but the man did. But the man could only inflict this much damage with a rifle. In fact rifles, automatic or not, are probably the #1 weapon in such massacres.

If you can't stop people from going insane, you can lessen the damage, and limit the means at which they can inflict damage with minor retaliation from the victims.

Edit 2: yes, I fully recognize that the black market and other illegal/under the table methods of obtaining these weapons will exist. But by limiting/removing legal venues, it would still make it harder for such events to occur.


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> I'm going to post an opinion here. I know some will disagree.
> 
> I think that one Congressman's opinion that Congress lead to this happening is indirectly true. Before you rage, at least hear me out:
> 
> ...


Eh, I guess I'll jump into these debates and see how long I want to stay. I enjoyed reading your take on this, however I do see a reason outside of self defense for certain rifles and shotguns, and that would be for hunting. It still is a necessity for some to survive, say in Alaska, by hunting. Probably the best way to do that in the manner you described where rifles and shotguns would be "illegal" would be to have a special license and have each person go through hunting and safety courses, background checks, etc. I'm not 100% for outlawing rifles and shotguns in the first place anyways, as I think regulations would probably stop a lot of the shootings that have happened as you stated at the end of your post. Anyways interesting read.

EDIT: just saw your part on hunting, whoops! I really need to stop speed reading these...


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Eh, I guess I'll jump into these debates and see how long I want to stay. I enjoyed reading your take on this, however I do see a reason outside of self defense for certain rifles and shotguns, and that would be for hunting.



I did attend to the issue of hunting. A shotgun is all we would reasonably need to commit to hunting. It would increase the risk to the hunters, but in most cases once the prey is in range they'd have an easier kill than packing a rifle to begin with, especially with higher caliber rounds, or even slugs, due to the sheer force.

I don't know if you saw my edit, but personally if it were me, I'd decommission all the hunting associations on a federal level and establish a single one under Federal control. Make it akin to a mailman position in a way in terms of relative job terms of normal people doing important duties for the country. Increase the strictness with the weapons, and restrict shotguns/rifles to require you turn them back into the hunting shop every night (or morning, if needs be to hunt at night). Make it a federal level offense akin to stealing mail (if not worse) for not returning the weapon, and that would heavily reduce the number of rifles getting into the wild. Won't stop some branch office higher-ups from sneaking some into the black market, but would help reduce the offenses.



> It still is a necessity for some to survive, say in Alaska, by hunting. Probably the best way to do that in the manner you described where rifles and shotguns would be "illegal" would be to have a special license and have each person go through hunting and safety courses, background checks, etc. I'm not 100% for outlawing rifles and shotguns in the first place anyways, as I think regulations would probably stop a lot of the shootings that have happened as you stated at the end of your post. Anyways interesting read.



Regulations can only go so far without restricting the means of obtaining these weapons to nigh impossible. Anyone can break though and pass tests. The criminal this time was seemingly a normal man most of the time, which set off no flags that worried anyone. Not his family, not his wife, seemingly not his previous wives (most we can tell they dropped him cause he got drunk). Restricting the timeframe people can have guns of more severe lethality would go further than complete and utter removal of these weapons. Yea, you might stop some, but let's not forget the current leader of the NRA was dropped from the military because they considered him a hazard with guns. What might be considered 'alright' to these gunshop tests, might just not be enough.

Offer say a $1,000 tax exemption for turning in rifles/shotguns (per gun). Put these rifles in with a Federal Hunting organization. The organization then can manage the hunting of animals better, possibly reduce the odds of people killing endangered animals by keeping a more up-to-date and managed database of brought in hunts. Not only that but you'd also have a tighter grasp on the movement of these weapons and tighter punishments.

You also can't expect security to improve. This guy snuck in what, 40 rifles into his room and had 23 if I remember bumpstocks equipped? The fact the hotel didn't catch this was atrocious, and years from now you know hotels will slack in security _again_ because it would be counterproductive to profits to invest so much time into security. Security regulations won't help.

So this again cycles back to the fact that we need measures against obtaining rifles, to drastically reduce the distance at which one can inflict damage at long distance. Imagine if this was a normal neighborhood, and imagine he just wanted to snipe one person through a window with these rifles. It would have been nigh impossible to confirm he did it. We only caught this guy cause he kept firing from his room (and the fact he had that room...) and other such details. He could have probably kept firing another 10 minutes if he wasn't stopped. And let's not talk about the fact he had a bomb made of that substance used for target practice - and enough of it to blow out easily 3 floors of that hotel.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 7, 2017)

It just occurred to me that Mandalay Bay will probably fix the room up and rent it out again....


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> I did attend to the issue of hunting. A shotgun is all we would reasonably need to commit to hunting. It would increase the risk to the hunters, but in most cases once the prey is in range they'd have an easier kill than packing a rifle to begin with, especially with higher caliber rounds, or even slugs, due to the sheer force.
> 
> I don't know if you saw my edit, but personally if it were me, I'd decommission all the hunting associations on a federal level and establish a single one under Federal control. Make it akin to a mailman position in a way in terms of relative job terms of normal people doing important duties for the country. Increase the strictness with the weapons, and restrict shotguns/rifles to require you turn them back into the hunting shop every night (or morning, if needs be to hunt at night). Make it a federal level offense akin to stealing mail (if not worse) for not returning the weapon, and that would heavily reduce the number of rifles getting into the wild. Won't stop some branch office higher-ups from sneaking some into the black market, but would help reduce the offenses.
> 
> ...


Another interesting read. Anyways I don't want to get too much in a debate here since I'm pretty tired and morning me will regret getting into a debate, so I will touch lightly on a couple of things. I didn't mean regulations on hotel security in my post, even though I didn't state it. The only way to 100% prevent guns or bombs from getting in a hotel like that would be tsa like checks for everyone, and even that isn't guaranteed plus that kind of check in every hotel would be ridiculous. As far as regulations I was thinking more along the lines of acquiring shotguns and rifles as you said. Also I have a feeling there would still be some shootings (but not many) if there was a hunting program for people to acquire shotguns and rifles. There's no way to fully know someone's intentions with a gun and stop them from shooting someone, even if they seem sane and passed all the checks (such as the Vegas shooter seemed to be normal). I also think there would still be shootings if all guns/ a ban on rifles and shotguns took place, due to a rise of a black market because there would already be a large amount of guns in the us plus it would be pretty easy to smuggle stuff in from South of the border, but that's a whole nother can of worms I just opened and I don't fully want to get into.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also forgot to mention the very likely possibility of an uprising and revolution if guns or even shotguns and rifles got banned in the US, but once again that's another can of worms.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

rileysrjay said:


> Another interesting read. Anyways I don't want to get too much in a debate here since I'm pretty tired and morning me will regret getting into a debate, so I will touch lightly on a couple of things. I didn't mean regulations on hotel security in my post, even though I didn't state it. The only way to 100% prevent guns or bombs from getting in a hotel like that would be tsa like checks for everyone, and even that isn't guaranteed plus that kind of check in every hotel would be ridiculous. As far as regulations I was thinking more along the lines of acquiring shotguns and rifles as you said. Also I have a feeling there would still be some shootings (but not many) if there was a hunting program for people to acquire shotguns and rifles. There's no way to fully know someone's intentions with a gun and stop them from shooting someone, even if they seem sane and passed all the checks (such as the Vegas shooter seemed to be normal). I also think there would still be shootings if all guns/ a ban on rifles and shotguns took place, due to a rise of a black market because there would already be a large amount of guns in the us plus it would be pretty easy to smuggle stuff in from South of the border, but that's a whole nother can of worms I just opened and I don't fully want to get into.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Also forgot to mention the very likely possibility of an uprising and revolution if guns or even shotguns and rifles got banned in the US, but once again that's another can of worms.



This reply can wait for you to return.

Indeed my intent was mostly towards the rifles/shotguns, but yes there's never a guarantee of anything. And of course even with restrictions as I suggested there would be shootings. The only things we can do is create less and less opportunities for such accidents to ultimately occur. And as noted two of my replies ago: I fully acknowledge black markets exist, but the legal avenues - and hence the easily accessable avenues - will be heavily mitigated if not negated in general. That's more of a relief than anything. From there discerning intent will be far easier.

As for uprising or revolution... well let's be real, we've had automatic weapons banned before (see the '94 ban on Assault weapons), and...





As seen in this image, between 94 and '04 we saw a huge dip in the number of homicides based on firearms, most likely this is a direct correlation, although I cannot state so as fact but instead as an inference based on such info. (Edit/Note: In 93-94 there was a drop, but nowhere as sharp as 94 to roughly 96)
(Although https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...yweapon.svg/325px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png - implies that handguns have a higher general rate of homicides, for some reason the ban seemed to have indeed had a role to play in the downfall in homicides as from '93 on there was a huge decline in gun based homicide in general).

As seen above - we endured a 10 year ban of assault (including automatic) weapons without a revolution. I'm sure we can handle another ban of guns.

If people seriously are going to revolt against a government for restricting access to lethal weapons to very precise requirements for not only their safety but others, and considering that these tools have no purpose in civilian hands except as 'a hobby', then well, those people are probably extremists to start and a threat to national security anyhow, although that's one point of view. That's the same as if they get angry for a ban on the civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, as I referenced in the first message.

In the end, all we can do is our best to hinder and restrict the motions of homocidal individuals. While handguns will always remain the more accessible method of murder as seen in the charts, the fact remains that they are also comparatively less frightening weapons and also more fitting self defense than the rest. When someone can give a legitimate reason for owning these more dangerous guns other than hunting (government should manage or restrict these rifles to hunt clubs or the sort, and hold hunt clubs constantly responsible for their stocks) or war time (go join the army then...), then I'd support civilians holding these weapons.

EDIT: to make something clear, I am not trying to use this as a springboard to say "BAN EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE A THREAT". I namely infer this as a means to mitigate threats that should never be in civilian hands. Here's a few examples of my opinion:
The substance the killer used (Tannerite) for bombs? Should be banned. It has no household use beyond as an aide in gun fire accuracy tests, and hence has no place in civilian hands due to the potential it has as a bomb. If they want to test their accuracy, they can stare at the hole they make.
Rifles - They are not for defense. For one when an enemy's on top of you, you aren't going to find it easy positioning a rifle and shooting your foe compared to a handgun. They're designed for mid-long range shootouts, as was their intent - for war.


----------



## Flame (Oct 7, 2017)

brickmii82 said:


> The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure the American people always have access to weapons in the event that the government becomes tyrannical and attempts to oppress its people.



like if a Russian puppet was in control and oppressing any one who isn't white rich man. how ironic.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 7, 2017)

@VartioArtel rifles are needed for target shooting. I've been on a target range once. A shotgun wouldn't cut it :-p I don't think rifles are all that bad (at least the one I used) as it takes like 30 seconds to even load the bullet in and pull all the different levers and things.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> @VartioArtel rifles are needed for target shooting. I've been on a target range once. A shotgun wouldn't cut it :-p I don't think rifles are all that bad (at least the one I used) as it takes like 30 seconds to even load the bullet in and pull all the different levers and things.


>Target shooting.

Read: A hobby. Which I've made clear in my posts I do not view under any circumstances as a legitimate reason for a rifle.

Also, what you're describing sounds like a American Revolution era rifle, which is barely longer range than a normal handgun.

Edit: You know what you can use on a target range though? A handgun. Unless you speak those over 100 feet away, but again, that's more a military shooting range, not something you ever need as a civilian.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> >Target shooting.
> 
> Read: A hobby. Which I've made clear in my posts I do not view under any circumstances as a legitimate reason for a rifle.
> 
> Also, what you're describing sounds like a American Revolution era rifle, which is barely longer range than a normal handgun.


It's still a rifle. I'm against guns more than anyone else in this thread, but using them for sport in a controlled way I view as fine(it was pretty much exactly like archery). It's when regular people start feeling scared and thinking a cupboard full of guns will make it better that I have a problem (now any criminal will have a gun, police are scared and more likely to shoot, civilians get killed by police, domestic violence people have easy access to guns, people who want to go on homicidal rampages have easy access to guns...)


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> It's still a rifle. I'm against guns more than anyone else in this thread, but using them for sport in a controlled way I view as fine(it was pretty much exactly like archery). It's when regular people start feeling scared and thinking a cupboard full of guns will make it better that I have a problem (now any criminal will have a gun, police are scared and more likely to shoot, civilians get killed by police, domestic violence people have easy access to guns, people who want to go on homicidal rampages have easy access to guns...)



See. That's the thing: owning these rifles is one thing. Being able to borrow them from a federally managed location for a shooting range for practice is another. I don't want civilians to 'own' these rifles, as in to be able to take them home, prepare them as they please, prepare ammo for them, etc. I do not mind them being able to borrow them at a set location like you do the play-guns used at your state faire, for example.

What you suggest would be the latter. So the point comes full circle: why should you be allowed to own a rifle? The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> See. That's the thing: owning these rifles is one thing. Being able to borrow them from a federally managed location for a shooting range for practice is another. I don't want civilians to 'own' these rifles, as in to be able to take them home, prepare them as they please, prepare ammo for them, etc. I do not mind them being able to borrow them at a set location like you do the play-guns used at your state faire, for example.
> 
> What you suggest would be the latter. So the point comes full circle: why should you be allowed to own a rifle? The answer still is: you shouldn't.


What about hunting?


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> What about hunting?


Literally editted that in a moment before you replied:
"The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."

Much like a shooting range, you don't need to keep a rifle at home, and hunting requires you need to report your kills (or so I'd hope!) to help keep track of when to cull the hunters to prevent over-hunting.

Why would you need a rifle at home, when you're not hunting at home? In an essence, hunting is more a job than something you'd do at home. Do you take your forklift home? How about your price tag sticker generator used at stores? Those are two examples I could give to make relative terms.

Edit: And that's why I've never seen 'hunting' as an excuse to 'owning' a rifle, as much as they should be maintained and stored by hunting associations.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2017)

Flame said:


> like if a Russian puppet was in control and oppressing any one who isn't white rich man. how ironic.




Yes, much oppressions. Much Russias. So much.


----------



## Flame (Oct 7, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Yes, much oppressions. Much Russias. So much.



said the white rich man. how ironic


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> Literally editted that in a moment before you replied:
> "The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."
> 
> Much like a shooting range, you don't need to keep a rifle at home, and hunting requires you need to report your kills (or so I'd hope!) to help keep track of when to cull the hunters to prevent over-hunting.
> ...


You can't leave your rifle out in the forest. It doesn't make sense. Where do you propose they keep them?
I don't think it makes sense to have hunters report kills - that would be a massive administration burden, plus, if the idea is to preserve vulnerable species, having a ban on killing those vulnerable species would be easier. Here, I'm not sure on the laws exactly, but I believe you can shoot all the rabbits and wild pigs you want (they are pests) but you're not allowed to shoot any native species (even though the government has to do an annual kangaroo cull).


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 7, 2017)

Flame said:


> said the white rich man. how ironic




Tell me how more oppressed you are than last year.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 7, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> You can't leave your rifle out in the forest. It doesn't make sense. Where do you propose they keep them?


Answered this before:


VartioArtel said:


> "The answer still is: you shouldn't. *Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."*


=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


> I don't think it makes sense to have hunters report kills - that would be a massive administration burden, plus, if the idea is to preserve vulnerable species, having a ban on killing those vulnerable species would be easier.


But it's something they do do. In fact:
http://www.gon.com/news/game-check-is-mandatory




> Here, I'm not sure on the laws exactly, but I believe you can shoot all the rabbits and wild pigs you want (they are pests) but you're not allowed to shoot any native species (even though the government has to do an annual kangaroo cull).



http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/8316.html

Basically put:
'Hunters are required to report the harvest of deer, bear, and turkey within 7 days of take. You may report your harvest using one of these methods:'

Hunters are expected to basically report anything you'd kill with a rifle anyhow: bears and Deer.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Tl;Dr: it's not that huge a stretch if there was a revision to hunting so that you had to leave your rifles at the hunting association closest to you. Also removing rifles from public hands would reduce (not eliminate) the # of poachers anyhow, as Rifles would be harder to come by.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> See. That's the thing: owning these rifles is one thing. Being able to borrow them from a federally managed location for a shooting range for practice is another. I don't want civilians to 'own' these rifles, as in to be able to take them home, prepare them as they please, prepare ammo for them, etc. I do not mind them being able to borrow them at a set location like you do the play-guns used at your state faire, for example.
> 
> What you suggest would be the latter. So the point comes full circle: why should you be allowed to own a rifle? The answer still is: you shouldn't. Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed.


Kind of like what Switzerland does with their military. I agree


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 7, 2017)

ganons said:


> Its quite simple really, he's not Muslim so he's either a lone wolf or has mental issues. Always some kind of excuse for a white killer.


>*he's not Muslim* so he's either a lone wolf or has mental issues

wew logical fallacies


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> >*he's not Muslim* so he's either a lone wolf or has mental issues
> 
> wew logical fallacies


Do you... do you hear that?... that whistling noise?? I think I just saw the point fly right over your head!


----------



## gnmmarechal (Oct 7, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Do you... do you hear that?... that whistling noise?? I think I just saw the point fly right over your head!


I'm not an idiot and I know what the point was. Was just poking fun at that particular sentence.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 7, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This takes the cake for the grossest comment I've ever read regarding both gender roles and gun control





TotalInsanity4 said:


> They probably had good points but I the only thing I got out of the underlying message was "men shoot people because women are taking their place in society and they can't control their own actions because of that"


What? I never said that. Stop making up crap I never said. Your response has no ground on reality.

So expanding mens roles in society is gross? Not having strict gender roles to provide is gross? When did I ever say increasing women role in society was a bad thing. I didn't. No where I said that. What I said is that since we increased women roles we should also increase mens roles and give them more options and more purpose in life.

Your completely missed the whole entire message because you were focusing on something I never said. Didn't you notice that I said girls were affected too? I mentioned that it leads to higher risk of being pregnant as teens for girls, girls suffer from mental and emotional health too from not being in intact families.  

They've been studying the impact of the family and child delinquency since the 1800's and the impact of single mother homes. It not about women taking place in society you idiot, its about the children. Doing whats best for the kid, and having equal custody rights so that your kid gets what is needed to properly develop into adulthood. Discipline comes from the home. Majority of inmates grew up in fatherless homes. I never said men shoot because women are taking their place in society you idiot, the underling message is that children, male and female, do poorly socially and economically coming from broken families. It starts at the home.

Being in an intact family leads to better mental health and physical health of the kids. They have fewer learning disabilities.

Children growing up with single moms are more likely to need treatment for emotional and behavioral problems. Also here.
Father involvement leads to better health for kids. Children do better growing up with married parents.

Children who grow up with both parents have better upward mobility economically. Also here and here. 

The current welfare system discourages single moms to establish a 2 parent household, because if the women is married and living with the biological father she can get a reduction and loose her welfare benefits. Children who grow up on welfare are more likely to be on welfare themselves. Children do poorly economically growing up in single parent homes. Poverty leads to more crime.  Especially gun violence. 

Father absence leads to more sexual activity younger and leads to higher rates of teen pregnancy for girls.

Children of single families have higher rates of drug use. 

Growing up with both parents leads to higher reading scores, they do better on most academic measures, and do better on social competence. Kids who grow up without a dad are less likely to go to college. 

It about the kids. But stupid dumb ass feminist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) are trying to prevent equal custody rights for fathers because they are delusional.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 7, 2017)

Here's my unpopular opinion. everyone has a right to defend people they love, i.e. family, friends, etc from credible threats of violence. In fact, the state I live in is a Castle Doctrine state and civilians have a right to stand their ground if:

- They know they or those around them on their premises are in danger of serious bodily harm or death
- The assailant enters by stealth or by tumultuous noise with intent to cause serious harm or death
- The one defending gives a verbal warning they are about to use lethal force on the premises

With that being said, no one should ever need an automatic or semi-automatic firearm, like, at all, for self defense. Responsible ownership of a simple handgun with a few bullets is more than enough for those who are competent and mentally stable enough to know what to do and what not do with a firearm to keep those they love safe.  There needs to be a stronger vetting process to make sure those who do have to prove they are sound mind and know safety, etc when operating a handgun. Again, if people want to go after me for this opinion, or call me out, so be it. Not all guns should be banned, but all automatic and semi-automatic guns are unnecessary to use for self defense.

Yes, we need to make it harder for people who are prone to going batshit crazy from ever owning any kind of weapon, granted, but where do we draw the line as far as controlling how and who is able to obtain simple firearms?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 7, 2017)

SG854 said:


> What? I never said that. Stop making up crap I never said. Your response has no ground on reality.
> 
> So expanding mens roles in society is gross? Not having strict gender roles to provide is gross? When did I ever say increasing women role in society was a bad thing. I didn't. No where I said that. What I said is that since we increased women roles we should also increase mens roles and give them more options and more purpose in life.
> 
> ...


I apologize, I clearly misread your post. This entire thread has kind of put me on edge


----------



## rileysrjay (Oct 7, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> This reply can wait for you to return.
> 
> Indeed my intent was mostly towards the rifles/shotguns, but yes there's never a guarantee of anything. And of course even with restrictions as I suggested there would be shootings. The only things we can do is create less and less opportunities for such accidents to ultimately occur. And as noted two of my replies ago: I fully acknowledge black markets exist, but the legal avenues - and hence the easily accessable avenues - will be heavily mitigated if not negated in general. That's more of a relief than anything. From there discerning intent will be far easier.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree on the revolution part of your response. I think you underestimate how many people have rifles and shotguns and how important the second amendment is to them. Yes there wasn't a "revolution" when automatic guns got banned, and I doubt it would happen if the government banned the devices the killer used in the Vegas shooting. I would say that from personal experience probably the majority of guns owned here in the us are either shotguns and rifles. How many had automatic guns in the us before the ban? I'd imagine not many since they aren't that practical and people wouldn't tend to use them. But rifles and shotguns? Pretty much everyone I know has multiple rifles or shotguns in their family household for hunting and self defense. And pretty much everyone I know that owns a rifle or shotgun would fight back if the government tried to take away their rifles, shotguns or even pistols and handguns. Plus as @Subtle Demise mentioned earlier, I've also heard there's a portion of the military that has vowed to fight back if the government tries to takes away civilian guns or takes away or infringes upon any of the laws in the Constitution and the bill of rights.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 8, 2017)

VartioArtel said:


> "The answer still is: you shouldn't. *Hunting's a valid reason but again, those should be managed by hunting associations, which I'd rather prefer Federally managed."
> *
> Tl;Dr: it's not that huge a stretch if there was a revision to hunting so that you had to leave your rifles at the hunting association closest to you. Also removing rifles from public hands would reduce (not eliminate) the # of poachers anyhow, as Rifles would be harder to come by.


This makes no sense. Do you think there's going to be an office at the entrance to every forest? Hunting is usually done in remote areas. Some friends of mine who kill wild pigs for farmers in far north Queensland are operating on farms that are thousands of acres. Having to travel an extra couple of hundred or thousand kilometres to also do a round trip to see hunting association offices is ridiculous. The nearest town to some of these places is 500km away and the nearest neighbour like 100km away (no way is an office going to be set up nearby and be manned).


----------



## Flame (Oct 8, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Tell me how more oppressed you are than last year.



I'm white British Turk for a start.

from the outside what happens in your country which acts like the world police, cannot police its own people looks very bad.
minority's always getting killed for just walking down the street.

let me answer your question like this. if you are a minority you cant be oppressed than the maximum before because it's normal, _right_?

your probably thinking i dont care what you think. but the people of the countries you oppress with your military doesn't think like that. funny that.



also people in rest the world think if world war 3 happen its will be because of USA.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/640472/Map-countries-most-likely-spark-World-War-Three


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 8, 2017)

Flame said:


> I'm white British Turk for a start.
> 
> from the outside what happens in your country which acts like the world police, cannot police its own people looks very bad.
> minority's always getting killed for just walking down the street.
> ...


Especially with Trump's latest tweet that sounds like a not very veiled threat to North Korea. If I was in America I'd be really scared the North Korea was going to drop a bomb on me.


----------



## Flame (Oct 8, 2017)

Quantumcat said:


> Especially with Trump's latest tweet that sounds like a not very veiled threat to North Korea. If I was in America I'd be really scared the North Korea was going to drop a bomb on me.



the truth is N. Korea can't do anything to USA. Shit even rest of the world can't put togther.

N. Korea Vs USA is a bad case of man childs with bad hair cuts shouting at one another the loudest and one day this man childs going to throw toys at one another. nothings going to happen to them. Just millions of poor innocent people going to die instead.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 8, 2017)

Flame said:


> I'm white British Turk for a start.



Okay. happy for ya.




> from the outside what happens in your country which acts like the world police, cannot police its own people looks very bad.
> minority's always getting killed for just walking down the street.
> 
> let me answer your question like this. if you are a minority you cant be oppressed than the maximum before because it's normal, _right_?
> ...





You're incoherent to me. Everything you say is laced with hyperbolic imaginings of doomsday and you seem to think the streets all over the USA are a literal shooting gallery 24/7. There are some very concentrated bad neighborhoods in some large cities here, and the illegal drug trade fuels a lot of the violence that occurs in those places. But outside of those zones, the US is not an unusually violent country. Really. (I lived in Japan for over two years, I have some idea what a purportedly very peaceful country is actually like.) I'm a libertarian and I oppose the strict prohibitions on recreational drugs in the USA. I believe very strongly that if marijuana were legalized nationwide and if 'popular' narcotics were available to addicts via a safe, controlled facility, much of the gang violence that inflates the gun crime statistics for the US would end. That is a real solution to the gun violence problem here. Gun control would just give the drug cartels and the gangs that work for them another cash cow.


----------



## Quantumcat (Oct 8, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I lived in Japan for over two years, I have some idea what a purportedly very peaceful country is actually like


The homicide rate in the United States is 16 times higher than Japan. So, Japan really is a peaceful country. Not sure what you're trying to insinuate here?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 8, 2017)

I was just saying that Japan is like everyone's poster child example of a peaceful, law abiding urban nation, but I still saw people getting the shit kicked out them by young gang-related thugs all the time (bar district, late night). And while gun control is strictly in effect there among the everyday population that obeys the laws, the gangs have guns. Their actions mostly stay off the radar, because they're not stupid and there's a 'managed' relationship between the yakuza and the police. Over 100,000 people go missing in Japan every year. Some are intentionally in hiding, some are suicides. But everyone there knows that most are people who had their debts with the yakuza foreclosed, permanently. In Japan, if there's no body, there's no crime. You can't always trust statistics.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 8, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I was just saying that Japan is like everyone's poster child example of a peaceful, law abiding urban nation, but I still saw people getting the shit kicked out them by young gang-related thugs all the time (bar district, late night). And while gun control is strictly in effect there among the everyday population that obeys the laws, the gangs have guns. Their actions mostly stay off the radar, because they're not stupid and there's a 'managed' relationship between the yakuza and the police. Over 100,000 people go missing in Japan every year. Some are intentionally in hiding, some are suicides. But everyone there knows that most are people who had their debts with the yakuza foreclosed, permanently. In Japan, if there's no body, there's no crime. You can't always trust statistics.


So... If I'm understanding you here, the big issue is that the police have become corrupted by the Yakuza


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 8, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... If I'm understanding you here, the big issue is that the police have become corrupted by the Yakuza



Well, the big issue is there's a whole lot more homicide in Japan than their govt. statistics will ever report. 

Goes back hundreds of years. It's not so much the police are corrupted ... the yakuza historically have served an important, if not entirely legit, civic function in Japan. Moneylending, managing vice industries of gambling and prostitution (which is very mainstream), conflict resolution which would be dealt with by civil lawsuits in other countries. The more legitimate functions of the yakuza have been diminishing with time though, which pushes them into more illicit criminal stuff. The police crack down occasionally, but like I said before if there's no body, there's no crime. The yakuza know this and take care of their business accordingly.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 8, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I apologize, I clearly misread your post. This entire thread has kind of put me on edge


No shit you're on edge. Bruh.... it's me!


----------

