Slashdot Mirror
Man Starts 'Gunbook' Social Media Site After His Gun-Loving Friends Were Kicked Off Facebook (buzzfeed.com)
CaptainDork shares a report from BuzzFeed: A British gun enthusiast whose friends were banned from Facebook for posting pictures of firearms has started his own version of the site for gun lovers. Called Gunbook, it was set up by David Scott, a 57-year-old shooting instructor who lives in Kilsyth, 20 miles from Dunblane. It went live three weeks ago and he says it already has more than 1,000 members, around 60 of whom are from the U.S. Scott admitted that part of the attraction of the site for members was that they could post about their love of deadly weapons without being judged by family and friends. "Quite a lot want to talk about guns and shooting and target shooting and their families can see and often people comment. Gunbook is the place where people can talk about guns without their families seeing because a lot of people have got anti-shooting and anti-hunting friends on these sites."
Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."
Many of the profile pictures on the site show people standing in striking poses with guns -- or are simply a picture of their arsenal. And just like any other social media platform, much of the content that has quickly populated the Facebook clone ends up being videos and memes. In contrast, his site is loosely controlled and encourages a community around gun ownership. It has two admins but reassures users in a Q&A on the site that "they will generally just leave you all to get on with things." It adds later that "they will never interfere [in a group] unless a post gets reported and even then only racist and really dodgy ones will get looked at if reported. Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0."
1) Post a geo-cached photo of where you keep your guns. 2) There is no step 2.
Now! with this Gunbook all those people who must be put down ruthlessly to make sure our Liberalism, Globalism and the Third World Order go unchallenged will be self identified! Our task has been made so much simpler.
Thank you Gunbook. Wait!
It is from the UK, the bastion of obedience and cradle to grave welfare state where we vote ourselves benefits paid for by taxing the idle rich. Is it possible this Gunbook was actually created by my comrade in arms? Is it a Flase Flag operation? Have I blabbered too much and gave the game away? OMG! What have I done!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
As they find out that guns aren't in fact banned in the UK.
Who thought this was newsworthy?
gunbook link points to airgunbook .... HAAAA
He should have called the site ShootYouInTheFaceBook
1) Post a geo-cached photo of where you keep your guns.
2) Visit lat-long in posted photo with intent to rob someone with guns.
3) Demonstrate to the world how we make the green grass grow.
FTFY
Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though ;0.
Next headline: ..and so on
"Man Starts 'Gunporn' Social Media Site After His Porn-Loving Friends Were Kicked Off Gunbook
No, law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns in the UK. Only the "bad guys" can have guns over there. That's why there is so much robbery and murder over there compared to us (That's what my life-time NRA member everyday Fox News watching father-in-law told me; so it MUST be true.)
So, it MUST be a criminal organization!
YouTube has been shuttering or demonetizing channels that feature firearm content. Seems like your channel can get suspended on one single complaint from a rabid anti-gunner, even if you haven't violated any rules. And then you have to fight to get it back up again.
And reddit just recently included firearms along with drugs, stolen goods, sexual services in a list of things that can't be bought, sold or traded. One of those things is perfectly legal.
Many firearms video channels have moved to Full30.com, a new site set up just for that purpose. And many shuttered sub-reddits have reopened on MeWe.com.
I understand where he is comiing from, but what is dodgy? With 1000 people ot is easy. With 1000000 a bit less obvious.
I wish him all the luck. For me guns are as interesting as hammers, but to each their own.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Gun nuts are funny people. They think their peashooters are going to protect them from a "rogue Federal government". Tell me guys, when are you going to start doing that? I would love to hear the plan for your well regulated militia you are going to form (soon).
Citi just announced a bunch of gun related restrictions on credit card processing.
I think it's just a matter of time until the NRA and NSSF start a bank to step into that void.
The last civil was was over slavery and money, the next one will be over guns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Just Capitalism at work. YouTube sees a threat to its income as other companies don't want their brands associated with that kind of content so they pull their ads, and therefore their dollars.
Just like how Capitalism will kill the moronic idea of arming teachers. Liability Insurance companies already killed that one before it got off the ground by either jacking the rates up or by simply saying "You arm, we cancel"
No one wants their uncle to constantly pop up in the comment section telling that any handgun whose caliber doesn't start with "4" belongs in their wife's purse.
Facefarm collects insane amounts of data on everyone. So why would anyone in their right mind volunteer to upload photographs of their guns? They already have the previous Facefarm data and now you want to give Three Letter an even more intimate look at your life, except this one concerns self defense and what a actually drives America's real checks and balances and why no one invades. And congratulations, you're now on a list. If they even made a particular anti gun law, Gunbook will be scrapped for those related owners. On the plus side, maybe it'll give the ignorant an opportunity to see what sane, educated gun owners are actually like. What's that you said? Yeah you're right, it'll be a bunch of camo rebel flag yehaw nut jobs screwing that up for us. Damn :/
tactical advantage of having a gun is lost as soon as someone is aware that you do in fact have a gun.
Do you mean running out of bullets? You do know that guns have other functions besides looking pretty.
I love seeing capitalism work
Porn, OTOH...
Youtube is demonitizing them because advertisers don't want to be associated with it.
...would probably have been perfect for this, as it's a sort of decentralised Facebook.
http://joinmastodon.org/
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The whole thing is a russian job, clearly.
"Latest school shooter learnt how on YouTube, bought parts on Reddit."
The risk here that people who support gun-rights should fear most is exactly what is happening with their extreme stance on guns: public support will evaporate, and they WILL be taken away. Once taken away, it's gone forever, we all know that. I have no problems with gun or gun ownership for mentally stable adults with no criminal record, who have been trained on how to handle and care for guns, and who are willing to take responsibility for them and own the consequences. I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies. We absolutely should be armed. But not all of us.
The complete abdication of responsibility in favor of total devotion to the second amendment is going to result in them being removed, one way or another. It doesn't seem like it right now, the NRA is still strong and the currently installed government is favorable, but what may not be seen clearly is how tenuous that position is, that much of this government was installed with the bare minimum of popular support, and that on this particular issue, one of many, may not actually be that popular even amongst their own.
The NRA is failing everyone right now, and Facebook is one of a multitude of examples of that. The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used. That the people most likely to misuse and abuse their rights are restricted from gun ownership. They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be. Taking a hard-line, extreme, no tolerance stance on gun control is ultimately going to be self-defeating. And we are watching it happen in slow motion.
Please do NOT upload porn videos to our servers though
When a group who are armed to the teeth ask you politely, who would possibly argue with them.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
US freedoms allow other great sites to open.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In my country the last free men that fought the communists/NKVD were the armed ones. And they lasted for years in the forrests. Some of us look up to them and would do the same, and some of us are little spineless dogfemales that have no problem living in chains and should tilt their eyes down when the adults are talking.
Is there a list of these treasonous scum? I would like to stop giving them my money.
Do you drink because you have problems? To face up to stressful situations?
Do you shoot when you get mad at other people, your friends or parents?
Do you often prefer to shoot alone, rather than with others?
Are you starting to get low marks? Are you skiving off work?
Do you ever try to stop or shoot less – and fail?
Have you begun to shoot in the morning, before school or work?
Do you shoot rapidly as if to satisfy yourself?
Do you ever have loss of memory due to your shooting?
Do you avoid being honest with others about your shooting?
Do you ever get into trouble when you are shooting?
Do you often go off half-cocked when you shoot, even when you do not mean to?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be a gun nut.Your family doesn't love or trust you to be around them.
or Otaku. I know several gun nuts and it's a social circle for them that accepts them without preconditions. Shared passions are like that. Religion, MMOs, D&D, etc all fall into the same boat. A lot of times they've got various personality defects or are just plain bad at socializing. This isn't a knock on them, that's just what it means to be a nerd. But it means they're intensely defensive of their right to own and shoot guns. Try and take them away and you're cutting them off from their social circle.
I don't care much for Bill Clinton. His right wing economics got us into the mess we're in now, all so he could win the presidency with an alliance of social liberals and economic right wingers. But he was smart enough to leave the gun nuts alone. You can't win with them. They've got too much at stake. They're instant single issue voters who show up at the polls.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Meanwhile, one of our local TV network stations is selling half hour 'paid programming' slots to a US gun manufacturer. There are plenty of 2A friendly advertising dollars out there. Target shooting, hunting and collecting guns are wealthy peoples hobbies. Pandering to neurotic hippies' fears just doesn't pay as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
Basically everyone.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies.
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that. If poop hits the wall, it's not the guns that tear the state down, it's the millions of people storming the gates, guns or no guns. A far more plausible scenario for the states, *if* a large enough group of armed citizens took over the government would be an equally shitty junta - and if they couldn't take over but were sizable enough, I doubt they'd be any less shitty than the dozens of other 'people's army' rebel groups that mar the history books and countries of today.
Your best weapon against a shitty government is education, birth control, and a well informed and intentioned populace.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I've seen edgier butterknives than this.
None of those were against a well militarized government, the only example is maybe Taliban in the 60ies with the help of the US government doing terrorism against Russian occupier but the Russian really only left due to PR and not being able to escalate. in fact when a foreign well militarized modern government started going against them in the last 10 years, they lost. it was a slow loss because the support was mostly only bombing and not "much" bombing due to PR, but now transpose that in the US. Peashooter are going to do nothing against drone sending one F&F missile to your house. Ask those guy in Pakistan.
basically even an AR15 today would be useless to take over the US government.
This is more or less correct. A company looks at which way the wind is blowing, makes their determination, and then takes their chances financially. Youtube just decided that the benefit of making the anti-gun side happy was more likely going to outweigh the push-back they would get from the pro-gun side. I am in fact pro-gun but I never understand why people (on either side) take it personally. It's not personal at all. It's a calculated move by a business entity trying to do what they think is in their best interests. Look at Dick's Sporting Goods for example. To much fanfare they took AR15's off their shelves. Does anyone remember when they did this once before after Sandy Hook? They made a big deal out of it and had their corporate "Think of the Children" announcement and got lots of positive press. Then they quietly put the guns and all the other stuff back into the stores where those things made up a significant amount of their business. Now they're getting rid of them again. They're just trying to make money and keep off as many peoples shit lists as possible. Can't blame them for it at all.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Cool story, button dick.
Oh, almost forgot. Capitalism hasn't had any effect on arming teachers in Texas. There are already over 150 school districts where this is allowed and no insurance companies have bothered to intervene in this at all. There a bunch of reasons for that but basically it comes down to CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Makes sense. That's pretty much how people learn things now. Go online, become an instant expert on any topic you choose. If it can show me the fastest way to change an alternator on a 2003 VW Passat then it can show someone how to put together an AR15 just as easily. Actually building the AR15 is a lot less trouble than the alternator.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Building sites catering to gun owners is good business. When eBay banned gun sales on their site, GunBroker.com was created to replace it. I'll bet that site makes mad bank every time there is a mass shooting and the Democrats threaten more gun bans. I remember some AR-15's going for around $2,000 on that site after Sandy Hook, twice their normal price.
(Hell, it almost makes me think that the dems are getting paid off by the gun manufacturers under the table to drum up sales. The Obama era was a HUGE windfall for them, and sales are down big now that Trump is in office.)
Sadly "person starts niche website" is news again.
AFAIK calling it Gunbook while it's a social media site in direct competition with Facebook is just begging for a trademark violation lawsuit. I suppose this partially depends on the font and color choices, but it seems unwise.
I suggest instead GunSite. Not only is it a great pun, and far less likely to cause legal troubles, you can make the 't' into crosshairs!
So using a YouTube adblocker is now the American thing to do?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How's that going to work out? One side has all the guns and the other are filled with Beta's that expect police/military to round the guns up for them...the very people that are sworn to protect our bill of rights.
I'll go build my own Facebook, with blackjack... and hookers!
#DeleteFacebook
there are lots of advertisers that do want to be associated with it. Half the youtube gun videos are associated with a bigname gun, ammo, or supply related company, and many of them are outright branding. However, if Youtube is going to discriminate against them, I am happy to watch gun videos elsewhere, and take my paying "user" eyes to enrich one of their competitors.
Funny one boner-nose.
I hope massive social media sites like Facebook disintegrate into a million of these smaller sites. It's almost like getting the old World Wide Web back again.
All the statistics in gun owning countries show time and time again that areas with no guns have higher robbery rates. No gun? What are you going to do? They wont fear you.
Keep up the good work Gunbook. Death to libtards.
So he started a forum. Just like millions of others. Whoopty-fuckin-doo?
I live in rural mid-west, guns are very common. They are mostly used to for hunting and to keep predators away from farm animals. Locked gun cabinets and safes are also very common. With the exception of a few nut bags most of the people aren't gun toting anti-government conspiracy theorists. Gun suicides, fatal drug overdoses, and the flu each more than double the number of homicides including gun homicides in my state.
Perhaps the NRA would disagree. There was a major victory in 2008 regarding Heller, followed by McDonald, in which Scalia for the first time clarified that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a right of the militia. Democrats in general believe the NRA is getting too many victories, as the trend was opposite all the way up to 2008.
I agree with you somewhat that the NRA needs to do more regarding reasonable laws. But I don't know what they can do. I don't trust democrats to write laws regarding guns.
the liberal anti-gun nuts, despite ever decreasing amounts of crime, always rant and rave about taking our guns away. They don't focus on recent failures where crazies got guns illegally, or, the system failed. Or a coward police officer sat in safety while innocent children died. No, they talk about encroaching on our freedoms when we are legal, mentally acute, law abiding citizens & veterans. And deadly accurate I might add.
Good luck taking our guns away!
No one stormed the white house or rose up in rebellion using their second amendment right provided guns
It just proves most gun owners are in severe need of viagara and they are using guns as a poor substitute. All that talk of being the last stop against tyranny is just self delusion.
But they do show up in elections, and vote, and enable unlimited and unfettered access to guns for every deranged mass murdering psychopath. That is the situation.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is *EXACTLY* how the internet we all want should work.
Don't like the commercial forum? Quit whining and set up your own with likeminded people. .... Wow, check it out, I'm a continental Eurohippster actually siding with a working-class gun-enthusiast on this one. ... *mindflash*
This guys actually deserves some credit for not whining around but actually doing something.
This is what was so cool about the iNet back in 2001 and why we all love slashdot.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
You left out the most important weapon -- the vote.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
... (see what I did there).
Analyzing the site, it opened with Adsense and other goop hanging off it.
The developer is taking advantage of an opportunity.
Pretty smart on his part.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Actually that covers every crime done with a gun, and you bet it's what those who want more restrictions focus on.
The entire idea is to reduce the number in circulation, so it's harder for crazies to get hold of guns to begin with, rather than rely on the current "system" which is, you have to admit, completely dumb and moronic. A 19 year old with anger issues? Sure, give him a rifle with awesome killing power. A 30 year old husband who beats his wife but has always had the charges drop, but is nonetheless currently the focus of a restraining order? Sure, what could possibly go wrong?! Martha Stewart? Now, now, hold on a moment, she's a felon...
Nothing wrong or illogical about believing the key to reducing gun violence is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation. It's what every other country has done that had a problem with gun violence, and guess what, it works, despite the bullshit propaganda put out by the NRA.
If it employs two-factor authentication across popular platforms for single-sign-on (SSO) the way Facecrap does, I'll be happy to sign up as well!
More guns in the hands of people = bigger number of guns overall in the country = much more likely that criminals will be able to get their hands on guns by stealing them.
More guns = more gun violence.
Eat the rich.
I would think gun magazine would be better.
Viagara? Is that for erecting a large waterfall?
Maybe it’s the size of your boner. But it’s about 8 times too small for mine.
Car are made for transportation , knife mostly to cut material invented and perfected as a hunting tool before even being for hunting warfare. Gun were invented for a sole reason : killing. Your technicality "he main purpose of a gun, technically, isn't to kill, but to eject a projectile out at high velocity" is the most stupid thing I heard. There may be a *limited* sport & hunting usage we have now, but the majority of the usage , gun birth & evolution, and cartridge evolution was to maim and kill, why do you think 5.56 nato was made ? Or semi automatic/full auto ? or even the first guns ? Hint : it was not sport or fun. It was all warfare.
As for the stupid NRA "pool and car also kill" yes they kill and in absolute number car even kill more, but that is ignoring how pervasive car are in cities, street and how much part of our life they take - and we increase security and lower the number of death per year. Gun by comparison are not so pervasive, take little part of our life and yet kill nearly as many people as car, and murder take a significant slice of it. And gun are perfected every year to be better more reliant killing machine. The comparison is so stupid to many level, you are either from the NRA, or a "useful idiot" to them. You may as well compare orange and jug of methanol (not even orange to apple). When I worked in research we had a name for such comparison : "it isn't right, but it ain't even wrong - it is just plain stupid".
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Tell that to the truly oppressed people of Africa, mowed down by the thousands. Tell that to the mountains of dead continental Europeans of the 40's. Guns were confiscated, then they were put in the trains...
Your best weapon against a shitty government is education, birth control, and a well informed and intentioned populace.
No reasoning. None. How does birth control stop the next Stalin or Mao?
The NRA is doing the same thing that more successful unions, and to a lesser extent industry lobbyists, do, and that's to take an extreme position in order to hold off any change or reduce the likelihood of incremental changes that water down the "rights" it fights for.
And, you know, I don't like it, but that's their job. They're not trying to be popular, they're trying to be scary. Thus far it's been successful not merely at holding off comprehensive reform, but actually driving reform in the other direction, preventing, for example, Florida's cities from imposing restrictions on firearms in children's play parks, to name one example.
Want to beat it? Well, that's the thing isn't it. It'll require a more powerful group to run in the opposite direction, a group prepared to make itself unpopular that drives for an extreme anti-gun position.
And that's my major concern, not that the NRA will eventually be thwarted and reasonable but strong restrictions will be imposed, but that the monster that is the ARN (that's NRA spelt backwards) will end up preventing what's passed from being reasonable.
It's up to us, not the NRA, to prevent that from happening.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
sounds a little gay to me.
Do like these guys did and build your own soapbox. You can scream from a soapbox all you like. You just cannot scream from my soapbox, since it is my soapbox that I built and paid for.
Ah yes, voting, just like they did during Stalin's tenure in the USSR. Just like they're doing in Venezuela now, where guns are banned (except for pro-gov militias, natch) and people slaughter zoo animals for food.
Tell that to the mountains of dead continental Europeans of the 40's. Guns were confiscated, then they were put in the trains...
This is perhaps the most hilarious argument of all. Several countries' professional and well-equipped armies couldn't stop the Nazis, and a tiny, unorganised fraction of the population with small arms were supposed to?
"The NRA should be acting as a steward, being the voice of reason that champions gun rights by making sure they're well and properly used."
They are. You should see what the NRA actually stands for instead of parroting the looney left talking points.
Do you have ESP?
More guns = more gun violence.
I totally agree. I hereby declare being stabbed to death as the preferred way of dying during a crime. No gun was involved, so we can unclutch our pearls. The killer should get a cookie for not using a gun.
The NRA is failing everyone right now
Why, because they call for exactly what you're talking about? They are the first ones to scream for actual enforcement of actual laws. The vast majority of murders involving guns are at the hands of criminals already blocked from owning and possessing firearms, most of whom have already been busted doing so in the past. And yet they walk around free to keep doing the same.
They ought to be researching and offering solutions to help ensure that gun owners are going to be the best and safest examples of what an armed populace could be.
Which is exactly what they do. But they have ALSO had to mobilize to fight back against the Democrats' increasingly overt message that nobody should be allowed to own guns. These are not mutually exclusive tasks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
but they're not the ones that drive polls. Universal background checks have a 97% approval rating in this country yet we don't have them. That's because those sensible law enforcement officers don't show up to the polls to vote for background checks. They've got a dozen other issues (education, healthcare, their pensions, etc, etc).
The way our elections work getting 1-3% extra votes makes or breaks most elections. That gives single issue voters a disproportionate amount of power. That means a small group of highly motivated voters can and will swing elections.
And when the heck did I use ad hominem? Everything I wrote was carefully reasoned. I left this part out, but what I'd actually like to see happen is that we address those voter's core issue, which is a lack of community. I'm a nerd too. I'd like to live in a world without nerds. e.g. without a class of people that get shit on their whole lives. I find the root cause of nerddom is often poverty and a lack of medical care. Weak kids with few opportunities to socialize when they're young. Better schools and parents that have more time to be parents would solve a lot of that. But it costs money.
Still, just like seeing a Doctor it's better to treat causes than symptoms.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Everyone behind "gun control" wants a total ban. There can be no compromise. Why aren't you telling Bloomberg to be more moderate? Because it's pointless, he gets his way with power and doesn't negotiate except as a feint. Freedom may be a weak position, but you fight on the sea, the beach, the street, the hill, until you either win or lose, all or nothing.
"CHL holders being safer and more law abiding"
except for those that have dischanged guns in schools accedentally or on purpose....
keep yer blinkers on, and believe the shit your shovelled.
That site looks a whole lot like Facebook... is there a framework available that looks and functions that similar to FB? I'm actually interested in checking it out.
Cant even debate? Just make up BIGLY facts.
SAD!
my sharpened kitchen blade and a flair for insanity will scare away any intruder.
Or do you think petty criminals are really going to stand up to a wailing 300lbs man holding a chef's knife?
How many users can the site have? At the moment its 10,000 but only 150 at the same time. We might be able to change that but as it's only shooters on here it's unlikely we will have that many on at exactly the same time. If we ever reach near our limit of users we will try to get a database upgrade https://www.airgunbook.com/rea...
Just imagine how surprised and disappointed that guy will be when he comes into his shiny new social-media site, by and for gun owners, to find it full of neo-nazi, white supremacist, racist, bigoted, and sexist conversations -- especially when he realizes that now he'll be inextricably linked to all the above, 'guilty by association'.
You built and paid for YouTube, Mr. AC? I SERIOUSLY doubt that.
More knives = more knife violence
More people = more people violence
More violence = less people
Therefore it is logical to see that:
More violence = less violence
Eureka! We've solved the problem! Just kill everyone and we will never have anymore violence!
I share their distrust of government, and particularly the people who buy our government and set its laws and policies.
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that.
Really? Here's one: A government...any government...would much rather face an unarmed populace than an armed one. I may be no match for a government drone but I can guarantee you that no army, no matter how powerful, wants to go up against 100 million armed citizens. The government would basically have to destroy the entire country to beat 100 million people with guns.
Just imagine what will happen when they find out guns aren't necessary for self defence here in the UK because we haven't armed criminals to the teeth.
Sounds like you may want to re-think your plan of an unarmed and vulnerable populace.
Criminals are in fact armed in the UK. You've just chosen to make sure they have a wider victim pool to choose from to spread out your risk.
Think about this - London is now more dangerous than NYC.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"A 30 year old husband who beats his wife but has always had the charges drop, but is nonetheless currently the focus of a restraining order?"
What about his wife, who could shoot his cowardly ass dead if only SHE had a gun? Sometimes gun deaths are HIGHLY justified.
Not all gun deaths are bad ones.
No. Become literate and read the argument again. Step one of dictators, totalitarians, and fascists is to disarm the populous. When that step one is all around you, that is your red flag.
The government would basically have to destroy the entire country to beat 100 million people with guns.
This is patently absurd and assumes that 100 million people, almost a third of the country (including children), would take up arms and gladly give their lives for...what, exactly? Most people will never find even the most dystopian scenarios worthy of dying for. What you are describing is fantastical, fetishistic hogwash.
what's next they'll discover dial up BBS and IRC...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Unlike the cops who have set their guns off accidentally and have shot people because they thought there could be just maybe a gun possibly somewhere.
Oh and let's not forget the cops that have made illegal arrests.
Oh... Or the cops that just hide outside while the criminals do what they want.
Oh oh... Or the cops who get outmaneuvered and need to be saved by a CHL holder.
Keep going buddy.
To be clear, I appreciate the jobs the cops do when it's well done. But the problem is, it is in fact a job, they get burned out, they get depressed, they get tired and frightened, they get disgusted... And then they start to make mistakes.
What about people advertising guns? Gun manufacturers don't buy advertising now?
Their business model is built around targeted marketing. They can't slap a "gun" tag on these videos and let advertisers pick and choose who they target? I'd be fine with Google simply stepping back and letting the free market drive the price and payout for various tags. Of course, that would mean more transparency for what happens money-wise behind the curtain.
"He's quite advanced for a ten year old", said his parents with a touch of defiant pride.
the Vietcong were North Vietnam's military. And they didn't win so much as we didn't have the stomach to wipe them out. As bad as the atrocities were in 'Nam they were nowhere near what was possible. Heck, media coverage of those atrocities were a big part of what got us out of Nam, and the Military Industrial Complex learned from that mistake and made sure nobody got to cover the crap we did in Iraq or are currently doing in Yemen.
The Taliban and Isis both lost. Every now and then they blow up somebody who doesn't matter. But the closest they came to killing somebody in charge was a low level general who was slumming it.
TL;DR. You don't stand a chance against a modern mechanized army with supply lines. Best case you'll get to kill a few dirt poor kids who joined the army for a job. But you'll never touch anyone who really matters. They don't get anywhere near a warzone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've yet to see anyone make a decent case of how guns would be a useful and/or effective means of remedying that.
see: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. The US military is really damn good at blowing stuff up but terrible at policing a nation that doesn't want them there. They've gotten better, for sure, but a bunch of pissed hicks with rifles ---That they are not allowed to indiscriminately exterminate wholesale--- have been able to sustain a conflict with the most powerful military in the world for a decade+. No, the idiots aren't going to storm the gates guns blazing. Well.... successfully anyway.
We are WAY WAY WAY far away from revolution. Too many people are well fed and content for that to be a serious concern. But if it comes to it, I wouldn't discount a sustained distributed sniper campaign. But personally, I think strong encryption should be protected under the 2nd amendment.
The best weapon against a whole lot of things is well informed populace. Education is THE long-term solution for nearly every problem. That includes things like war. If we could have just informed the populace of Germany and Russia about the truth of the matter, I doubt they would have been so hawkish. But there are unknowns in the world and people with fucked up beliefs. So as a safeguard against idiots, we have a military. In a similar vein, we have the 2nd amendment.
"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
-- Representative Henry A. Waxman (Democrat California)
He is correct. Anyone that would use violence to protect their rights needs to have their rights taken away because they have proven they don't deserve rights. The NRA's claim that their members deserve the right to own guns is proven a paradox by that logic.
but I don't see any evidence that you won. I'm guessing you're either in Russia or one of the old Soviet Bloc countries. All of which are more or less run by dictators. I'm not saying my country, America, is any better. What I'm saying is violence won't work. At best you're going to trade one Junta for another. You won't win against a modern military. If you start to get in the way of the Mega corps I'm sad to say my country will send bombs and (if needed) troops to bring you in line. Like the GP said, the solution is education & birth control. You need people too smart and too few to oppress.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
even with mountains of training cops accidentally shoot people all the time. Throw somebody with little or no training outside of weekly target practice in an active shooter situation and they're probably going to screw up. I remember when Gabriel Giffords got shot. There was a 'good guy with a gun' on site but he didn't draw. When asked why he said he couldn't figure out who the shooter was and was afraid he'd shoot the wrong person or get shot himself by another "good guy with a gun".
One of the late night comedy hosts did a skit once (Colbert or Oliver, can't remember which) where they staged an active shooter scenario with regular people and pain bullets. The people in question knew what was going to happen and they still couldn't stop the shooter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The 2nd Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia..."
GunBook will help eliminate the guns from circulation that shouldn't be in people's hands.
There a bunch of reasons for that but basically it comes down to CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.
What do truck drivers have to do with this?
It's a joke. CCW is the preferred nomenclature when speaking to a national audience.
Looks like the slashdot-effect shot it up. Not responding.
Table-ized A.I.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; and
(2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3)he reasonably believes that:
(A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
They claimed Obama was a tyrant. No one stormed the white house or rose up in rebellion using their second amendment right provided guns. It just proves most gun owners are in severe need of viagara and they are using guns as a poor substitute.
So because a few people said Obama was a tyrant, the gun owning citizens of America were supposed to storm the freaking White House? And because they didn't it PROVES they have male-part issues? Damn, you gun grabbers get dumber by the minute. The only thing your little mental exercise actually proves is that 99.999% of gun owners are normal, perfectly sane people who wouldn't ever do something like that unless maybe a real tyrant was running the country. It also proves you have no reasoning skills whatsoever, or are so blinded by hatred of gun owners that you're unable to think properly.
I can't count how many times I've heard liberals claim that Trump is "literally Hitler." Should the gun owners storm the White House to fix this problem too, you stupid chode?
A government that needs an excuse to shoot protesters -- which is most all of them, even Assad needed some protester violence to justify his crackdown -- would rather face an armed populace. For most countries (possible exceptions: North Korea, China), fighting a Gandhi is a lot more difficult than fighting armed terrorists.
This space intentionally left blank
As long as you never attack me or my family, you have nothing to fear from my guns.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The government would basically have to destroy the entire country to beat 100 million people with guns.
This is patently absurd and assumes that 100 million people, almost a third of the country (including children), would take up arms and gladly give their lives for...what, exactly? Most people will never find even the most dystopian scenarios worthy of dying for. What you are describing is fantastical, fetishistic hogwash.
You all seem to think that the military and National Guard is just going to side with the government. Most will not. In fact they've asked them and 80% said they would side with the citizens, so yeah 100 million people with guns is about right.
One side has 300 million guns and the other side is confused about which lavatory to use and cries over pronouns "because words hurt" but don't think that incrementalism won't work. Every inch we allow them to move their agenda forward is just one step closer to the civilian disarmament that they really want but few will admit.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's a paradox based on the logic of an idiot...you.
The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal on the matter. "Shall not be infringed" leaves very little wiggle room. Unless somebody is convicted of a crime and temporarily has their rights stripped from them as punishment (serving a criminal sentence in prison), the Second Amendment is supposed to ensure that EVERYONE is able to "keep and bear arms."
Short of a constitutional amendment to revoke that (which would probably cause a civil war in and of itself), I don't see how the NRA can take a compromising stance on "shall not be infringed."
As-is, background checks and other things arguably infringe on Second Amendment rights. If a person has paid their debt to society in prison, they should have every right returned to them, including those in the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, our society and our laws have a very loose interpretation of the word "infringe", which is why you see so-called "gun nuts" angry about gun control.
Our society does a piss-poor job of returning rights to people once they've paid their debt to society. Once a criminal, always a criminal, as anyone can run a background check on you and deny you participation in a good chunk of society just because you made a mistake years ago.
As it is, I'm lucky I haven't made such a mistake. I hope I never do, because I value my rights, and it's shameful I only get to keep them so long as I don't make a mistake that then cuts me out of half of society.
I have no idea what the NRA actually "stands for." I do get their promotional brochures tho and I don't see anything close to the voice of reason. They are trying to sell guns using fear. That's the most effective way to sell any sort of "security service."
Unfortunately, their market is shrinking drastically. While there is on average one private gun per citizen in the USA, most people (most means more than half) do not own a gun and aren't in the market for one. Makes me wonder where the NRA got the $30 million they gave to get Comrade President Trump elected.
Well police tend to be short fat bald high school loosers so...
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. It has to be; I've seen some pretty dumb crap here, but this is really out there. FFS, that line of thinking condemns those who fought against Nazis trying to take away their human rights.
People think that watching "Die Hard 1..n" and _maybe_ shooting on a range somehow makes them competent to identify and kill an active shooter who's most likely expecting to die and take with him (it's all men, isn't it?) as many people as possible.
I'd love to see a representative survey of parents whose job it is to identify and take out active shooters in public situations.
The question would be "Do you think your kid is safer at school if the teachers are armed?".
If the answer is "yes" I'm curious to see it implemented in law with the CDC or other proper institutions following and studying it closely.
Disclaimer: I am and will be very far away from the US in a country with strict gun laws and a homicide rate that is 1/6 of the US. :)
And I have no kids
sure give him a cookie i would have it baked with a nice mix of Canibis , Hemlock, and Belladonna
The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal on the matter. "Shall not be infringed" leaves very little wiggle room. Unless somebody is convicted of a crime and temporarily has their rights stripped from them as punishment (serving a criminal sentence in prison), the Second Amendment is supposed to ensure that EV
ERYONE is able to "keep and bear arms."
The list of ways in which the first amendment alone has been mitigated and re-interpreted for the betterment of everyone is very long. I personally think the plain language of the first amendment leaves no wiggle room, but we have wisely chosen to put some limits on it. How that was justified requires a constitutional lawyer, or perhaps it's justified because nobody challenged it. Quite a few of the other amendments have been curtailed over the years, some i think are nearly ignored (see also: amendment 4).
There's room. The question is do you want to do it the reasonable way, with cool heads, or do you want to do it the hard way, at the hands of an extremist opposition:
Short of a constitutional amendment to revoke that (which would probably cause a civil war in and of itself), I don't see how the NRA can take a compromising stance on "shall not be infringed."
My point is that you really do not want this to happen. Support for this amendment has been waning for decades. Abstracted from the safety of a carefully marketed political party, who is drawing a diverse set of people who do not share every belief but who agree to vote a certain way, you are putting this single issue to popular vote. I would not take bets on the outcome. I know a lot of card carrying republicans who are against gun ownership or in favor of gun control who would gladly support an amendment enabling the government to start imposing such limitations. A lot of them from law enforcement. The amendment would seem benign, it wouldn't be a ban, but it would ultimately undermine the 2nd amendment nearly as completely.
The media will continue to vilify guns and gun owners, continue to showcase every mass murder and school shooting, continue to parade every half-wit inbred retard who can lift a shotgun on TV as an example of what gun owners are, what exactly do you think the result will be? How long until we get to the tipping point? On the present course, we're headed towards the worst case scenario.
Start a dating site for ammosexuals! Gonna be kind of a real sausage fest, guys... "Do you think maybe he's compensating for something?" -- Shrek
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Great way to boost this community guys...
Is this supposed to be the English language, or something else?
You're calling him a murderer? Best call the po-po on him you keyboard warrior.
Oh, almost forgot. Capitalism hasn't had any effect on arming teachers in Texas. There are already over 150 school districts where this is allowed and no insurance companies have bothered to intervene in this at all. There a bunch of reasons for that but basically it comes down to CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.
My girlfriend teaches at a college on the Texas Gulf Coast. There has been a significant material cost in the required establishment of a police department for a small campus that never needed one, as a direct result of the legislature's actions. Not surprisingly, many of the students and a significant amountof faculty are also angry and upset that guns are allowed to be carried on their campus. But whatever, it is cool because it allows you who knows nothing of school administration to make sanctimonious and uninformed posts so that your little feels>reals game with your security blanket can be fully realized.
I have no idea what the NRA actually "stands for." I do get their promotional brochures tho and I don't see anything close to the voice of reason. They are trying to sell guns using fear.
The NRA doesn't sell guns. I have no idea what "promotional brochures" you're actually receiving.
Do you have ESP?
I suppose itâ(TM)s better than being a liberal cuck or beta mommas boy. Itâ(TM)s a stupid idea but the guns thing-well, we know who and why they are afraid of them. The man boobs and tranny vaginas are on the other side. Lol.
All these people here claiming to be for the "good of people" and all they do is hate here.
Seriously fucked up. What the fuck is the matter with you?
All of which are more or less run by dictators.
This is plain false, we romanians are not run by a dictator (not since 1989), the poles are not run by a dictator, the czechs, the slovaks, the bulgarians none are run by a dictator. Not even Orban who is a nasty piece of work, not even him is a dictator, far from it.
You know who *is* a dictator ? The Tzar, that's who.
I'm not saying my country, America, is any better.
This is what you are not getting, you so so should be. I am. America is a whole lot better. 10x better. Heaven on earth kind of better. Tell me how bad it is when you don't have food in the supermarket, any supermarket. Or when you get picked up in the middle of the night never to return home for wrongspeak. Then we can talk.
You won't win against a modern military.
Don't have to win in the classical sense. See Vietnam, Afganistan, Corea, perhaps even the American Colonies though they were not in modern times.
At the moment your country AMERICA is keeping us free from the emperor, and I thank her for her soldiers camped here.
Who rules our country now ? I won't say the people. But whoever rules our country does not mass kill civilians, like before. Does not keep us malnurished, like before. Does not cut off electricity and heat in winter, like before. Allows us to own our homes, not like before. Allows us to go out of the country, not like before. Mmmmyeah I would say these new overlords are better than the old overlords... just maybe....
National gun registry courtesy of idiot gun nuts.
Those are public schools, right? They might have different terms on their insurance than the private schools, just to comment on the other AC's insurance angle.
Actually, the people I see talking about taking guns away are primarily gun nuts. Most leftists don't like having so many guns around, and would like to see more restrictions, but I rarely see talk about confiscating them. One might think that certain gun-related organizations like whipping up gun nuts into a frenzy of fear that we're coming for their guns.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Leftists are not confused over which bathroom to use. The people who are concerned about that are right-wing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Could you provide a reference to this mythical poll that says 80% of the military and National Guard are potential criminals?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Those rich people are the ones who are paying for your social programs. The top 1% pays nearly half (47%) of individual income taxes. They are paying much more than their "fair share" and don't even use the services their monies provide.
You are implying more gun violence but is it more overall violence? The crimes would take place in other ways.
Besides, if we REALLY cared about saving lives we would be focusing on hand guns instead of rifles. Rifles get all the high profile cases, but the actually number deaths is definitely higher with handguns.
Take out the guns and much of the gun violence will just become knife violence or blunt object violence.
With a bit of luck, these specialty sites will embrace protocols that enable them to communicate with each other. It might, possibly, be the beginning of what social media should have been (and started out as). Namely, independent sites, with content aggregators rather than a monoculture.
What about ad defense? Against all sizes of groups of people ...
CHL holders being safer and more law abiding than even police officers.
That's setting the bar pretty low.
Just Capitalism at work. YouTube sees a threat to its income as other companies don't want their brands associated with that kind of content so they pull their ads, and therefore their dollars.
I might believe that if YouTube (and Google) only had one option but that was not the case; like Bloomberg and other gun prohibition advocates who are taking a page from the Australian handbook of preparing ahead of time and never letting a crisis go to waste, they had an agenda and waited political cover to implement it. In return, they sacrificed rational discourse and made enemies of 10s of millions of Americans. That never hurt a company or a politician running for office.
This is furthered by steering the discussion through the phrase "arming teachers" to exclude discussion of the alternatives. A popular movement based on false assumptions always comes to a good end.
Just like how Capitalism will kill the moronic idea of arming teachers. Liability Insurance companies already killed that one before it got off the ground by either jacking the rates up or by simply saying "You arm, we cancel"
Just like how capitalism killed arming law enforcement officers who shoot bystanders when they had qualified immunity available. I had not noticed the rash of armed school employees and bystanders in states which allow it increasing collateral damage but if you say so, it must be so.
"CHL holders being safer and more law abiding"
except for those that have dischanged guns in schools accedentally or on purpose....
keep yer blinkers on, and believe the shit your shovelled.
Most of those have been law enforcement officers and at least the insane CHL holder you are thinking of did not actually injure anybody.
You left out the most important weapon -- the vote.
Is this the same vote which disenfranchised Bernie supporters and installed Trump?
The vote is irrelevant when the candidates are chosen for you.
Tell that to the mountains of dead continental Europeans of the 40's. Guns were confiscated, then they were put in the trains...
This is perhaps the most hilarious argument of all. Several countries' professional and well-equipped armies couldn't stop the Nazis, and a tiny, unorganised fraction of the population with small arms were supposed to?
Do you think they would have been as unorganized if they had a historical example to foretell the future?
Most of the countries you refer to directed their own citizens and army to surrender. But why didn't Switzerland? How was it that Finland survived? There is no way a bunch of colonists could defeat the British military.
Is there any single discussion where the analytically challenged or terminally envious don't immediately start calling into question their opponents sexual prowess or capability?? I have tried debating the point with these ppl, they honestly believe it's scientifically proven:
OMG they have a nice ( Insert name of nice property they worked hard for ), "he has a small Penis", or "you know she's fucking for it".
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
That's what happens when you ban speech.
Look I'm a liberal (seriously, not trolling), but even I'm getting sick and tired of the sanctimonious hypocrisy coming out of Silicon Valley nowadays.
You are a bunch of smug, arrogant, vane, shallow, greedy, sociopathic, hipster, brogrammer douches who believe that sowing anomie (a.k.a. "disruption") is righteous.
Tend to the gigantic plank in your own eyes before you go pointing out the tiny specs in the eyes of others.
airgunbook.com ...
The site is primary for airguns, but gunbook is probably a shorter and a little "fancier" than airgunbook
i abandoned and stopped using my Facebook page shortly after i'd first opened it to download the photos my sister wanted to give me. Facebook has never closed it, even though i haven't logged in to it even once since. That was over three years ago! Farcebook wants to keep as many pages "open" so to appear to their investors (mere advertisers) that they have THAT many viewers/users. That's how they keep profits up... https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Would postings of actual shootings be allowed?
Or, bodies?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
No, not the gunbook guy. This article. It's stupid.
Knife/blunt object violence is a hell of a lot less deadly than gun violence.
Eat the rich.
how effective is "the vote" when the powers-that-be rig the elections?
Ask any Sanders supporter how that worked for them.
And, to the Op, the only way they will be taken away is through bloodshed. Remember what happened the last time...
Their business model is built around targeted marketing. They can't slap a "gun" tag on these videos and let advertisers pick and choose who they target? I'd be fine with Google simply stepping back and letting the free market drive the price and payout for various tags. Of course, that would mean more transparency for what happens money-wise behind the curtain.
The part that you're overlooking - even gun manufacturers probably don't want to be associated with a random YouTube channel in case the channel talks about unsafe gun use or goes on a shooting spree.
Technically, he's claiming that 20% are potential criminals.
Remember, the United States' sovereignty is vested in the People, not the government.
They still don't need one but feel they must add one because of the snowflake students and staff (You know, your friends most likely) who are "angry and upset" because a bunch of people who routinely carry guns around them everywhere else and are almost never responsible for any of the bad shit that happens with guns are now allowed to bring them into their safe space. My post was filled with nothing but facts and allowing those CHL holders to continue carrying on campus has made them nothing but safer. You don't see that because like the pussies you're describing and apparently dating you want your imaginary gun-free zone to continue not protecting you. No number of your own sanctimonious and uninformed posts will make that a reality. Wouldn't you feel safer and more at home in California? Take her with you.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.