Slashdot Mirror


Mass Shooting Reported at Madden Video Game Tournament in Florida (polygon.com)

Multiple people on live streams and social media reported a mass shooting at a Madden NFL 19 tournament in Jacksonville, Florida, this morning. The Jacksonville County Sheriff's Office confirmed that law enforcement was en route to the scene but had no further information early this afternoon. From a report: In the video, two competitors are playing when someone starts screaming off camera. As the first of nine shots break out, they abandon their stations and others are heard fleeing. Then a man is heard crying out, "What did he shoot me with?" Three more shots are fired and screaming can be heard. This weekend at Jacksonville Landing downtown was the first of four qualifier events for the Madden Classic series sponsored by EA Sports. CNN: "Multiple fatalities at the scene, many transported. #TheLandingMassShooting," according to Jacksonville Sheriff's twitter page, which urged people to "stay far away from the area" as the area is not safe at this time. "One suspect is dead at the scene, unknown at this time if we have a second suspect. Searches are being conducted," according to another tweet from the sheriff's office In a statement issued moments ago, EA Sports Madden NFL said, "This is a horrible situation, and our deepest sympathies go out to all involved."

Top competitor Drini Gjoka, who was at the event and reported the terrifying scene, said, "The tourney just got shot up. Im leavinng and never coming back. I am literally so lucky. The bullet hit my thumb. I will never take anything for granted ever again. Life can be cut short in a second.

Update: LA Times reports that the shooter was a gamer who was competing in the tournament and lost, according to Steven "Steveyj" Javaruski, one of the competitors.

716 of 1,293 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What the fuck is wrong with you people?

    1. Re:Seriously, America. by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Seriously, America.

      What the fuck is wrong with you people?

      Videogame-related killings? This is a first for Amercia, I think, but it's not so rare in Korea.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guns, religion and unchecked capitalism.

    3. Re:Seriously, America. by rfengr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nothings wrong with me. I just got back from the gun range.

    4. Re:Seriously, America. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the fuck is wrong with you people?

      Yeah, going totally bonkers because you lost at Madden NFL? C'mon, guys, we don't really have to have that sort of thing.

      Obvious solution: EVERYONE who plays Madden NFL at tournament levels should be locked up, to proactively prevent this sort of thing.

      Or, alternately, we just make losing Madden NFL illegal. No losers, noone going postal for losing, Everyone wins, everyone is happy, right?

      On a rather more serious note, the bozo doing the shooting killed himself. A bit of an overreaction to losing a game, even without the shooting other people part....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Seriously, America. by rfengr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was one a couple of years ago in TX, but a good guy with an “assault rifle” stopped it. The media does not like to remember that one.

    6. Re:Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you trying to pretend this isn't a "gun-related" mass shooting and instead is "videogame-related"? They don't have mass shootings (or even many shootings) in Korea. Not sure what you were going for there.

    7. Re:Seriously, America. by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's bullshit and you know it. The Texas church shooter had already done his deed and was fleeing the scene when the citizen intervened. Also, the citizen's choice of weapon had squat to do with ultimately stopping his escape. But - Hey! Keep living that Rambo fantasy!

    8. Re:Seriously, America. by quonset · · Score: 5, Informative

      You never hear about mass shootings in Texas

      Oh really? Never hear about them?

      I guess this list is bogus. No mass shootings you say? Perhaps you're not looking hard enough.

    9. Re:Seriously, America. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Don't believe everything FOX (or is it Faux?) News tells you.

    10. Re:Seriously, America. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that one, the (draw mohammed/shoot jihadists) contest.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re: Seriously, America. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The people are still allowed to defend themselves in Europe?? That's pretty cool; thanks for clearing that up.

    12. Re: Seriously, America. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The parent post was parroting the US conservative media/conspiracy line that Europe is rapidly being changed into a region run under Islamic law. Nothing is further from the truth.

    13. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Are you delusional or what ? I live in Europe and I can walk safely anywhere without fearing to be shot by some random asshat.
      Oh, we have strict gun regulations by the way...

    14. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education and move straight to a basic civics class. The 2nd amendment is already a limited right in our country. It can't be fully revoked, but it can be limited - and it is.
      Socialism = drinking water, interstate highways, college tuition assistance programs. You know, scary stuff you have to fear rather than allow yourself to think about, being a Republican. No thinking allowed! FEAR it.

    15. Re:Seriously, America. by gtall · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yep, as soon as we're all armed to the teeth, there will be a new rule: the perp gets to turn one, maybe two, into stiffs before we get a chance to whip out our weapons and open fire on the perp...miraculously missing any innocent by-standers, and there will be no chance law enforcement will see any of the citizenry waving guns around as a threat and shoot their asses for good measure.

      In fact, we'll put in a new Amendment to the Constitution: we all get to whack 1 or 2 people before any serious prison time or the death penalty will result. The Law of the Jungle!!! Kill or be killed. Kill'em all, let G-d sort out the righteously armed from the armed perps. Oh, and no alcohol allowed anymore...ermm...it doesn't go well with guns. And no school children either, they don't go well with guns as well.

    16. Re: Seriously, America. by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Funny

      The obvious answer, since speech and guns are both protected rights, is to ban football.

      We can't ban football games, because speech, but we can ban the actual game, and then in 50 years nobody will be interested in it enough to want to play Madden online, and there will never be another shooting exactly like this one.

    17. Re:Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can guarantee that this happened in a "gun free zone." These shootings always do. You never hear about mass shootings in Texas or other places that allow open carry. The just don't happen. It's almost like an armed populace is a safe populace.

      According to the update, the shooter was a competitor who lost. That doesn't sound premeditated: instead it sounds like someone who happened to carry a gun when he flipped out took recourse to the gun.

      So this was a case where exactly the case of "an armed populace" was what enabled a guy losing a game to turn into a mass shooter. In Europe, you'd have gotten a few broken noses and a guy under arrest and on line for medical costs.

    18. Re:Seriously, America. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      If that's even true, then it's good if the press isn't allowed to publicize it. Publicity leads to copycats -- frankly, the less publicity such crimes are given, the better.

    19. Re:Seriously, America. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I remember another funny story from Texas, also a couple years ago, about a guy who witnessed a car-jacking at a gas station, and drew his gun and popped off a few rounds, but he accidentally hit the victim in the head. Then he gathered up the spent rounds, and fled the scene.

      Of course, most of the media never even ran the story, and they're certainly not going to remember it when people say stupid stuff like you just did.

      https://www.rawstory.com/2015/...

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    20. Re:Seriously, America. by Megol · · Score: 1

      I just don't understand your angle here. Are you trying to be sarcastic about both mass shootings and freedom of the press, or are you seriously deluded and actually believe what you just wrote?

      With the easy access to public discussion forums on the Internet exposing the thoughts of deranged people I just don't know anymore. :(

    21. Re: Seriously, America. by quonset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America is only 11 when it comes to mass shooting casualties per capita.

      Ah yes, the infamous, "But when you look at the statistics. . ." bullshit argument. It's the same one used to excuse away the fact white men are the largest perpetrators of child molestation/rape in the U.S., as well as the largest perpetrators of mass shootings in the U.S.

      If a country of 6 million people has one mass shooting, of course their numbers will look higher. But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack.

    22. Re:Seriously, America. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, it would imply the opposite! If you were suppressing the news, and it worked, you'd have less deaths. Not more.

      Instead, you're suppressing the news, and then you don't know it is happening to try to do anything about it. There is no feedback loop where if it gets worse, you'd have some sort of response.

      You're willing to stand on your head to make it look right-side-up, but it isn't very persuasive. Maybe there is some third answer that is better, but you'll never be the ones to find it.

    23. Re:Seriously, America. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, you think I'm joking, because your politics places everybody in little tiny boxes.

      I said it because it is true.

    24. Re:Seriously, America. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Frankly, best to bury it even if it gets worse. If it's publicized it will create a positive feedback loop, making it EVEN worse. And some of the possible knee-jerk responses (bag searches, more surveillance, closing down of public events, etc) fall into the "thanks but no thanks" category. Best to keep calm and carry on, not sow panic.

    25. Re:Seriously, America. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry to pop your pompous little bubble there, but the fact of the matter is that shit happens, and when it does, it's better to be prepared than unprepared. Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people. It also means that you disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can go right ahead and arm themselves (Anders Brevik, for example).

      I sincerely hope that if your life is ever in danger, that there is someone equipped and prepared to defend you, but kindly stop pretending that abject helplessness is a virtue.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    26. Re: Seriously, America. by yodleboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But looking at statistics per capita is just fine when slagging off America about education, medical care or countless other things.
       
      Hundreds of millions of citizens, hundreds of millions of guns, yet somehow the inanimate object is still held up as the problem. Millions of people living peacefully and owning guns without hurting anyone. I guess if there were no guns, there would be no death right? No stabbing, no bludgeoning, no driving through crowds. We'd be in a peaceful utopia of kindness, right? Like in Europe where nothing bad ever happens, right?
       
      The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the U.S. are drug/gang related. End the bullshit war on drugs and watch them drop. Next up, suicide. Stop gutting mental health treatment and revolving door committals for at risk people. There you go, massive decrease in gun deaths. That would cost money though. Gotta keep the prison industry rolling. Can't waste money on crazies when we need to fund pork. Easier to distract the masses with "guns bad, history bad, group-think good".

    27. Re:Seriously, America. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't get to cherry pick.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Seriously, America. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      We're discussing the present, not long-past history when our grandparents were kids. If you go back that far, the US was no picnic either -- in some parts of the US, not being white and speaking to a white woman incorrectly could get you "disappeared" or falsely convicted of rape and sent to the electric chair.

    29. Re:Seriously, America. by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They redefined 'mass shooting' about 3 years ago. It's much 'worse' since then.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re: Seriously, America. by nmo.marques · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you count swatting, its not the first.

    31. Re:Seriously, America. by chill · · Score: 1

      Including war is dishonest, and that's putting it kindly. Try limiting it to not including wars.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    32. Re: Seriously, America. by nmo.marques · · Score: 1

      If you cant double tap a target with accuracy you should not own a gun. Thats easy.

    33. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a first for Amercia, I think, but it's not so rare in Korea.

      As far as I know, there have been zero mass shootings related to video games in South Korea.

      And really, there are fewer homicides in the country in general, so I think you may be misinformed.

    34. Re: Seriously, America. by nmo.marques · · Score: 2

      And in Portugal an idiot took his 13 year old kid to a robbery. A cop shot the kid during the chase and got convicted for involuntary manslaughter and convicted to pay 50.000 euro to the perp. The other perps kids were not removed from the family. We cant own guns, just 6.35mm pea shooters.

    35. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if this guy was part of a militia, it was not a very well regulated one.

    36. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people. It also means that you disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can go right ahead and arm themselves (Anders Brevik, for example)."

      Of course the very reason criminals can so easily get guns in this country is because we're awash in them. All you have to do is put your head up and look around at every other first world nation with stricter gun laws than ours. They all have lower homocide rates.

      All of our guns are most certainly not making us safer in this country

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    37. Re:Seriously, America. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      "Shit" wouldn't happen as often as it does if fewer people had guns.This guy was one of the "good people" (i.e. not a gangster or criminal) until he snapped and shot up the place.

    38. Re: Seriously, America. by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Europe as a whole has more people than the US yet across the board their numbers are much higher.

      You, like so many others, conflate the entirety of Europe with the U.S. when you should be looking at each individual country. However, since you brought it up, this article says there were 19 mass shootings in all of Europe between 2009 and 2015 wherein 319 people were killed (the outlier being the shooting in Norway in which 69 people were killed). That comes out to 20 deaths as the result of mass shootings per year in the entirety of Europe, or just over one death as the result of a mass shooting for each European country per year.

      During that same period in the U.S. there were 25 mass shootings with 199 people killed (apparently our shooters need more practice). Snopes laid out the skewed statistics and why the U.S. ranks far and above Europe in mass shootings.

      Since that time, the U.S. continues to pull ahead of Europe in mass shootings. This article uses 2009- 2016 for their numbers in which they calculated 156 mass shootings with 848 people killed (their methodology is slightly different than above). One thing to note is, according their numbers, only ten percent of mass shootings take place in a "gun free" zone.

      As to your other statistics, I said child molestation and rape, not rape as a whole. Big difference. But keep using statistics to justify racism and ignore who the real perpetrators are of certain crimes.

    39. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education ...
      Socialism = drinking water, interstate highways, college tuition assistance programs

      Irony.

    40. Re:Seriously, America. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Your own comment makes exactly that mistake; you apply positive feedback instead of negative feedback, so instead of amplifying a signal you simply drive it unfailingly to one end of the spectrum.

      You don't seem to make any attempt at all to check if the feedback you're describing makes sense in the conversation, or if it goes in the opposite direction than the context.

    41. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: "hurt durr REAL socialism has never been tried!!1!1!1"

    42. Re:Seriously, America. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Informative

      Was this a gun free zone?

      The property's rules of conduct prohibit carrying weapons of any kind other than by law enforcement. If it's like most places, it would also have lots of copiously posted signs to that effect.

      Someone intending to shoot up the place would, of course, just chuckle on the way past the signs. Law-abiding people, on the other hand, would follow the rules, leaving the only civilian guns on the premises in the hands of the criminals.

      If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there?

      Because, of course, guns don't just magically disintegrate when entering a "gun free zone."

    43. Re:Seriously, America. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the fuck is wrong with you people?

      I’m American, and I wonder the same thing.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    44. Re:Seriously, America. by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      All of our guns are most certainly not making us safer in this country

      What's your next guess? Guns are used defensively about two and a half million times a year in the USA.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    45. Re:Seriously, America. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      I'm deeply sorry for your friend.

      The rest of your comment is kind of reasonable. Except, of course, that shit does happen in the U.S. and the individual is not necessarily killed on the spot, and that certainly isn't the end of it.

      But your point about it being the U.S's business how it writes its laws, is perfectly correct.

      Peace.

    46. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong. Black on black gun crime is indeed the leading rate on gun based murder. It's not debatable. It's straight fact.

      Chicago would have almost no gun crime at all if you eliminated the black gunman.

    47. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, people in the US are quite determined to tell other countries what to do. See North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Nicarauga, Mexico, and more.

    48. Re:Seriously, America. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Yep, as soon as we're all armed to the teeth, there will be a new rule: the perp gets to turn one, maybe two, into stiffs before we get a chance to whip out our weapons and open fire on the perp...miraculously missing any innocent by-standers, and there will be no chance law enforcement will see any of the citizenry waving guns around as a threat and shoot their asses for good measure.

      In fact, we'll put in a new Amendment to the Constitution: we all get to whack 1 or 2 people before any serious prison time or the death penalty will result. The Law of the Jungle!!! Kill or be killed. Kill'em all, let G-d sort out the righteously armed from the armed perps. Oh, and no alcohol allowed anymore...ermm...it doesn't go well with guns. And no school children either, they don't go well with guns as well.

      I think the problem with the rambo fantasy is even worse than that.

      What they don't account for is the actual confusion that's going on, if you listen to the audio from the live stream one of the guys who gets shot (it sounds like he survived) asks "what did he shoot me with?"

      Just think about that, the mass shooting is already underway, he's literally been shot, and he's still trying to figure out what's going on. We don't know the exact timeline of this shooting but I'm guessing that by the time most people really reacted to the situation it was already over.

      That's the thing people don't quite grasp, a mass shooting is a very usual event, and the only person who's really prepared for it is the shooter themselves. You need to not only realize you're in an actual mass shooting and haven't wandered into a movie set or some kind of prank, but you need to find the shooter (if they're not standing right in front of you) and decide to kill them. Not to mention the fact if the situation is on-going you'll literally have to engage in a gunfight with someone who will likely shoot back and has just had some very relevant training in shooting people.

      That's why the "good guys with guns" typically only show up after the fact, it's just not realistic to expect them to evaluate the situation quickly enough to react while it's happening.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    49. Re:Seriously, America. by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      I bet the chance of a massacre increases with the population size of a gathering. Therefore: either boost security or reduce capacity. This isn't exactly rocket science, we know how to secure large venues.

    50. Re:Seriously, America. by ahodgson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I live in a country with pretty strict gun control. The criminals still have guns.

    51. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jesus H. C., man - you have no idea with the meaning of the word regulated means
      as it was used in the period that the Amendments were written. That entire line is what
      we would call (in today's language) the "duh" line, iows, its meaning was clear and
      obvious to the people at the time. A Militia without the right to bear arms is not a Militia;
      the two concepts are inseparable. It has nothing to do with laws or "regulation."

      It's not the right to bear arms, it's the right for a Militia to legally exist that is spelled out
      by the amendment. And a Militia is an "ensemble" of gun-owning individuals. (The right of)
      private gun ownership is a trickle down of the right for citizens to form and operate a Militia.
      Think about it, what value is there to a right to be armed is you cannot assemble as a Militia?

      The founding fathers were no dummies, and the Amendment was purposefully worded in
      that way for that reason
      . This was to prevent laws from being passed that would restrict
      armed citizens from forming a Militia. It even goes further than an individual "right" -- it's a
      necessity - something that is absolutely required, not a luxury, for the security of a free State.
      Think of it along the same lines as jury duty and things will begin to make better sense.

      Please, please do some linguistic work before spouting anti-gun rhetoric.

      CAP === 'tyranny'

    52. Re:Seriously, America. by aticus.finch · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is put your head up and look around at every other first world nation with stricter gun laws than ours. They all have lower homocide rates.

      No, they don't. You meant to say "lower gun deaths" as a means of equivacating "deaths" with "gun deaths", but in your haste you said something else.

      The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.

    53. Re:Seriously, America. by aticus.finch · · Score: 1

      Not being armed doesn't make you helpless, especially if in all likelihood the attacker won't have a gun either.

      Doesn't mean the attacker won't be armed. It just means that you won't be armed while the attacker will be.

    54. Re: Seriously, America. by aticus.finch · · Score: 2

      America is only 11 when it comes to mass shooting casualties per capita.

      Ah yes, the infamous, "But when you look at the statistics. . ." bullshit argument.

      What do you want to do? Ignore any stats that disprove an ideology?

      If you find yourself claiming an argument to be bullshit just because facts are brought up you are not going to have an easy time in the world.

    55. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I guess when you don't understand words you can probably convince yourself of such things.

    56. Re:Seriously, America. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Disarming good people means bad people cannot steal their guns. So instead of disarming good people, let's cut off that source of guns for bad people by making it a crime to leave any gun unlocked. Currently, only Massachusetts has that law. (Other states only require it in households with children.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    57. Re: Seriously, America. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      And if everyone has a gun the perp is just gonna shoot you in the back before you realize he's there, whereas the guy with a knife is gonna take your wallet and run.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    58. Re:Seriously, America. by youngone · · Score: 5, Informative

      The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.

      *Citation Required.
      As far as I can see that's mostly bullshit, if you're comparing apples with apples.
      Check this graph out.
      I added the US and compared with your rate per 100,000 people with a couple of rich countries and a couple of random other countries.
      US rate = 4.9 (2015)
      UK = 0.9
      All High Income countries = 2.4
      Feel free to have a play, I mean you might like to compare yourselves with Somalia or whatever.

    59. Re: Seriously, America. by Calydor · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's also worth noting the differences in the kinds of mass shootings in US and Europe. The US has a lot of cases of students shooting up their own schools to get back at bullies, while Europe has issues with extremist terrorists. Utøya in Norway and Bataclan in France in particular.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    60. Re: Seriously, America. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      English language fail.

      Diagram that sentence.

      Unfortunately your founding fathers fucked up that sentence so bad, nobody since has been able to understand what this is supposed to mean.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    61. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that we need to separate Europe into its constituent countries, but we cannot do the same with the USA? Surely you're not asserting that their is only one singular culture that exists throughout the entirety of the Unites States land masses... That would be profoundly stupid to assert something which is quite false.

    62. Re:Seriously, America. by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What? Clearly we like it this way, or we'd do something about it. Just like everyone else has.

      I have a couple of solutions that might work. Now the knee jerk reaction is "Oh, let's just get rid of all the guns!" And it seems like that mostly works, and allows authorities to focus on the people who seem to be trying to get guns, but the minute you say that, the gun people are all like "Weeeeh! Then only criminals will have guns! Weeeeh! We have to have guns to revolt against the government if we need to! Weeeh!" I dunno. Hard to focus on the message over all that weeeehing. And clearly these people have never been napalmed by a government-run military that, despite the fact that those same people say the government sucks at running anything, is really well armed, really well run and quite capable of overwhelming whatever little pea-shooters civilians have. But I won't even suggest it, you know, to avoid the weeehing.

      Since we can't do that *cough*, we could just give everyone guns and mandate that everyone carry them and be trained in their use. Then if someone starts shooting, everyone can start shooting back. Doesn't that sound like fun? It'll be just like the wild wild west, and there's got to be a reason that is one of the most romanticized periods in US history. I'm sure the NRA would be completely behind this plan if they weren't going out of business for... what did they do again? Insurance fraud or something? Illegally influence US elections on behalf of Russian oligarchs? Honestly, it's getting pretty difficult to keep up. Well, whatever god damn shenanigans were going on over there that's causing them to go out of business now, anyway.

      Another possible option would be mandatory military service for all US citizens from their 19th birthday to their 24th birthday. And mandatory reserve status for anyone who wants to own a gun. Then you could apply the GI bill to their education, it's got militias right in the thing, solves the current recruitment problem and everyone gets a healthy dose of perspective that they were otherwise lacking when they come out of high school. I think that covers all the bases.

      Another alternative is that we can just keep doing what we're doing, letting any crazy jackass get all the guns and ammo they want. This is probably what will happen.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    63. Re:Seriously, America. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.

      But it also discards the natural disadvantage of stupid people naturally outumbering everyone else. If absolutely everyone was packing, you'd get a bunch of ewll-meaning dumbasses engaging in spray and pray trying to hit the bad guy and making things much worse.

      If you don't think that will happen then you have much higher faith in humanity than I do.

      It also means that you disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can go right ahead and arm themselves (Anders Brevik, for example).

      So how come you also get mass shootings in Texas?

      I sincerely hope that if your life is ever in danger, that there is someone equipped and prepared to defend you

      Likewise if your life is in danger, I scincerely hope it's not ended rather abruptly ya a well meaning memver of the militia playing at Rambo.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    64. Re:Seriously, America. by Knuckles · · Score: 4, Informative

      The USA has more guns than most countries, and yet still manage fewer homicides than countries with fewer guns and stricter gun laws.

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

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    65. Re:Seriously, America. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      So they should have fitted metal detectors and checked bags of people entering.

      You do realize from my first link that this is an open-air shopping mall, right?

      Here's right where it happened. Pan around a bit and get back with me on where you would have put metal detectors.

    66. Re:Seriously, America. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean the attacker won't be armed. It just means that you won't be armed while the attacker will be.

      By that logic everyone should be carting round a Bofors L/70 since otherwise you might encounter an attacker who's better armed than you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    67. Re:Seriously, America. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee that, as it was done in Florida, it wasn't in a "gun free zone".Florida has quite a few laws banning such things. Cities can't even ban guns from government offices and children's playgrounds.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    68. Re:Seriously, America. by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      Actually not surprised this was with a football video game. I've seen haw fan react after the game and winners can be just as bad as the losers. Never see this after a star trek convention.

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    69. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "What's your next guess?"

      My point still stands. Our homicide rate is multiple full percentage points higher than the next closest first world nation that has stricter gun control laws and guess what? Our gun violence rate is through the roof too. It's great people have also used guns to defend themselves but that doesnt change the fact that they are a net drag on our nation's safety.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    70. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Another possible option would be mandatory military service for all US citizens from their 19th birthday to their 24th birthday.

      Mandatory military service is a horrible idea. The whole reason we have the second amendment was that it was supposed to eliminate the need to have a standing military. While that idea might be outdated (how do you provide a nuclear deterrent* without one?) tying gun ownership to military service is precisely the road we don't want to go down.

      * I'd like a world without nuclear weapons please. And some fries, with that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:Seriously, America. by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Was this a gun free zone?"

      Of course it was a so-called "gun free" zone, because almost all "mass shootings" occur at "gun free" zones.

      http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-co...

      http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

      >"If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there?"

      You are kidding right? "Gun free" zones, are not enforced, they are just "feel good" things that actually make the zone much, much less safe and a prime target for shooters who want to do maximum damage in minimum time.

      >"If it wasn't, how come the good guys with guns didn't save everyone?"

      Because the "good guys" follow the laws and rules and the "bad guys" don't. This shooting was another case of mental health problems.

    72. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      By that logic everyone should be carting round a Bofors L/70

      In close quarters, that would actually be a disadvantage. Not to mention the high risk of scratching your paint while getting in and out of your car.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    73. Re: Seriously, America. by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you delusional or what ? I live in Europe and I can walk safely anywhere without fearing to be shot by some random asshat.

      I live in the United States and also walk safely anywhere without fear of getting shot. Been walking around for fifty-something years and never seen anyone pull out a gun in public.

      I can see how it might appear that we are all armed to the teeth and taking potshots at each other if all you have to go by are the news stories. Personally I don't own a gun simply because I don't want or need one and I'm certainly not fearful. Fearsome, one might argue, but that's another story.

    74. Re: Seriously, America. by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Great. Since we aren't going to eliminate the black man, we know where we need to start.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    75. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, they didn't. It was plain language for their time. In fact, the original 2nd Amendment concept, as written by James Madison (who wrote most of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), wrote:

      "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison

      You can find his words in the annals of Congress. The 2nd Amendment is a more concise and clear version of what he wrote. It's only when you don't like what it clearly and plainly states (in the vernacular of the time it was written) that it becomes unclear or cloudy. If you're in doubt about what it said - then go back and read what was debated and proffered by the original writers.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    76. Re: Seriously, America. by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >"Ah yes, the infamous, "But when you look at the statistics. . ." bullshit argument."

      Statistics are facts. If you don't use facts, then you are arguing irrationally and emotionally.

      >"But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack."

      Meaningless. Obviously such statistics have to be per capita or they are pretty much of no value. And when you do make it per capita, USA is nowhere near "leading the pack." In fact, in mass shootings, "the USA is 4th behind 3 European countries or eighth when a broader set of non-conflict countries are examined."

      http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-co...

      http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

    77. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. Please see section E, part b. Weapons are prohibited. This was a gun free zone.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    78. Re:Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    79. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Mass shooting victims per capita over the last 10 years or so are much higher in a lot of Europe than in the US. The US is 11th on the list, trailing places like Norway, France, Belgium and Finland (and several others).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    80. Re:Seriously, America. by Quake1v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We keep letting just any two morons make a baby anytime they want and then we hold them the loosest of standards on how to raise it. Then, as it grows, it learns how unique and special it is and gets trophies for coming in last place, while mommy and daddy make sure its grades are adjusted after they threaten the teachers and schools for failing their unique snowflake. It never learns how to deal with actual, real life and all the disappointment and frustration life brings and then shoots the place up when things don't go it's way. We don't need more gun control - we need population control.

    81. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, I meant what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      We have a regular old homicide rate multiple full percentage points higher then the next closest first world nation. I'm not sure where you got it in your head that we have a low homicide rate but that's not anywhere near true by first world standards.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    82. Re:Seriously, America. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Informative

      Pretty much this...guns + people = danger. You have a country where in most states you can trade guns at least as easily as used video games (some have DRM that makes this difficult), and an unsecured venue. No shit people get shot. The shootings will continue as long as this death cult with 3~4% of the population in its overinflated membership manages to overpower the rest of the population and prevent sensible gun laws like other countries with functioning governments have from being put in place.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    83. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then read what he originally proposed as the basis for the 2nd Amendment; I quoted it, and you can follow the link. It's that the right to keep and bear arms is unambiguous and explicit, and that a well-armed society is the best way to ensure freedom of governance (given that the US was, at that time, barely 10 years old). Don't take your misunderstanding and extrapolate it - go and learn about it, see what was written in the vernacular of the day, and go forward.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    84. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're missing the point of a gun free zone. People are not retarded and think that it magically creates a place that guns can never enter (I'm fairly certain the above poster was being sarcastic and you didn't get the joke). Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called. There's no delays wondering about the person's motives are because they are breaking the law just by having a gun in that place.

      It also creates an environment where people don't have to feel intimated by others (good business sense for a restaurant). Let me tell you from personal experience there's nothing like being in an open carry state, having a minor disagreement with some one and having them draw attention to the fact that they are carrying a gun in that context.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    85. Re: Seriously, America. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      How about the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock as an example?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    86. Re:Seriously, America. by monkease · · Score: 1

      You never hear about mass shootings in Texas or other places that allow open carry. The just don't happen.

      Let me Wikipedia that for you.

    87. Re:Seriously, America. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (I'm fairly certain the above poster was being sarcastic and you didn't get the joke).

      I'm fairly certain you didn't read his follow-up post, nor take note of his handle. He's one of the most prolific flaming-liberal-America-sucks posters around here.

      Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called.

      Oh, phenomenal. That buys you a whole 2.7 seconds before you would have called the police anyway after the first round was fired. That's definitely worth the tradeoff of the shooter being able to freely plug away at fish in a barrel until the cops show up.

    88. Re: Seriously, America. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The other part is that at the time, a standing army was considered bad as it led to tyranny.
      Today America has one of the largest well equipped armies in the world, so it could be argued that the reason for the 2nd has gone away.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    89. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm just trying to get you to get your story straight.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    90. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So the problem lies further upstream: how easy it is to procure a gun.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    91. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then do the correct and right thing and change the Constitution. There is a process to do so - use it. Or do we just decide that rule by executive fiat is acceptable?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    92. Re: Seriously, America. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Lots of examples of working socialism. Think of things like co-ops. Credit Unions are pretty socialist as well.
      In areas of Northern Italy and parts of Spain there are quite a few worker owned co-operatives producing goods and operating in a capitalist society quite well.
      Like so many ism's, it works best when government involvement is minimal. Historically there has also been problems such as in 1930's Spain where the Stalinists showed up and fucked things.
      People forget that libertarianism was originally a socialist idea and that all socialism means is the workers or people owning the means of production and running it in a democratic manner.
      Like most ism's, it doesn't scale up very well and in poor countries, it is used by authoritarians and the corrupt to get into power.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    93. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Sick burn brah!

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    94. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually the 2nd amendment is a check on an unchecked government overreaching and taking away the peoples' liberty. The US Sumpreme Court has also found that is enshrines the individual right to possess arms for self defense, such as protecting ones self and family in the home. In that the 2nd amendment will always be needed.

    95. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The criminal was from Baltimore

    96. Re:Seriously, America. by kevmeister · · Score: 1

      People should do at least minimal research before posting fake "facts". One of the first mass shootings of the modern era was from the UT clock tower. There have been many since.

      That that is also sort of irrelevant since Texas is not an open-carry state.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    97. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Sure, socialism tends to work OK on a small-comunuty level. Mainly because there's a fairly low limit to how much power the community as a whole can actually amass, and because people are free to leave if they're not happy with the way things are being run. Where it starts being a problem is with communal cults/religions which try to prevent members from leaving, and/or don't allow them to take anything with them.

      Anyway, I'm not the one arguing that it's never been tried. Talk to the other guy.

    98. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Here's something concrete: in the USA, it's too easy to procure a gun.
      Gun free zones, civilian guns, even police guns are irrelevant in the case someone with enough resolve decides to shoot a bunch of people, as long as guns are easily available for purchase by pretty much anyone.
      Are there solutions? Sure, but all of them except really tough gun control are like pouring whisky over a festering wound every couple days, but no other treatment, and since gun control is impossible to enforce in the USA, you guys are forever stuck. No wonder my American friends were amazed to see a single police patrol with just a couple never used handguns over a period of three days along a very busy, 100-mile stretch of seaside resorts in my country. How come? Strict gun control.
      No gun control: That's how USA ended with a huge and very heavily armed police force, and slightly less heavily armed citizens. It's an armament race that has been going on for many decades. Soon enough it's gonna be police RPGs versus civilian miniguns or something like that. And there's nothing you can do to stop the trend.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    99. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When did Europe start needing "diversity" barriers to protect their Christmas markets? When did London overtake New York City in murders per capita, despite having a gun ban? When did New Year's Eve in Cologne have over a 1,000 women sexually assaulted by gangs of men?

      Seems certain people are the problem, not the guns.

    100. Re:Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, this will be another one where the police had some prior warning and did jack-all about it.

      Guess again. This guy was from way out of state. He lost the game and then lost it. No telling how much time he put into the game and then how much money he spent to come to Florida.

      In a tight space like that room in the Landing he could have done a good bit of damage with a knife or a lot of damage with a bomb--or with his car once he got back to it.

      The problem is that people are coming unglued.

    101. Re: Seriously, America. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      America is only 11 when it comes to mass shooting casualties per capita. Belgium, France, Norway are way ahead.

      I think both the time period and definition of mass shooting was cherry picked but technically that's correct, mainly because there's been more deaths due to political terrorism like the Paris attacks (130 victims) and Norway's Utøya massacre (69 shooting victims, 77 total) compared to the US with the Orlando nightclub shooting (50 victims). Though I feel terrorism is kinda their own category and whether they use guns, bombs, gas, trucks or airplanes to kill is kinda irrelevant. Like our Norwegian terrorist set off a bomb that would have killed hundreds if it had worked as intended, the mass shooting was just a backup plan. If you look for something resembling school shootings where the goal seems to be nothing but carnage and suicide/death by cop the US is leading by a mile.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    102. Re: Seriously, America. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like an argument that the 2nd amendment should be exercised.

    103. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      definitely, it wasn't that long ago that a pissing match over call of duty ended up with the wrong guy getting 'swatted' and killed over said video game pissing match.

      IMO the voice chat feature of these games are like pouring gas on the fire.

    104. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to a new poll on citizen security in 135 countries, Venezuelans are the least likely people in the world to feel safe walking alone at night.

      The Gallup 2017 Global Law and Order Index found that just 12 percent of Venezuelans felt safe walking after sundown and only 14 percent expressed confidence in their police.

      In addition, 38 percent of Venezuelans said they had been robbed in the last year, putting it in sixth place worldwide behind five countries, all in sub-Saharan Africa.

      The Observatory of Venezuelan Violence, or OVV, says there were at least 28,479 violent deaths in 2016, or 91.8 deaths per 100,000 residents.

      https://www.miamiherald.com/ne...

      Great place. Good thing they banned guns. Keep up the good work, Hugo!

    105. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Even Snopes agrees that the number killed per capita is higher in Norway and other places. They call it a "mixture" by pointing to the median, rather than the mean. So the mean is correct - the average number of people killed in mass shootings per capita is higher in Norway, Belgium, France and other places. But the number of mass shootings per capita is higher in the US. The original claim I made, as worded, is 100% correct - per Snopes. Now if you want to say "lying with statistics" because I didn't state what you wanted me to - that's your issue, not mine.

      PS: try the link again. It does work.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    106. Re: Seriously, America. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Seriously, free-for-all capitalism is just another name for "anarchy". It's been tried and results in warlords holding power.

    107. Re: Seriously, America. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      That's something up to Americans to decide to do, or continue as you have by chipping away at your rights by judicial fiat as executive and legislative fiat.
      And as the AC points out, the right to bear arms was first about self defense, see the Bill of Rights of 1688.
      Funny enough, originally it was a requirement for free men to bear arms rather then a right as the militia was much more important back in the day.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    108. Re: Seriously, America. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Or the army shrunk in favour of the militia. The navy is quite capable of defending America, especially the nuke equipped subs.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    109. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Free for all anything is anarchy, Einstein.

    110. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      maybe per capita? England is a pissant country the size of Rode Island. Surely you dont compare their total numbers to a country with hundreds of millions right? Unless, of course, you break it down to per person.

    111. Re: Seriously, America. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Oh, we have strict gun regulations by the way...

      You also have strict truck regulations and strict knife regulations, which haven't helped either.

      The problem is that Europe has terrorist insurgents and the US has lots of untreated crazy people.

    112. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 2

      our heroin overdose rate is nearly 10x the gun death rate now. In fact if you rule out suicide (lets face it, take the gun away, they still kill themselves) we have other, enormous death problems we gloss over. The overdose rate from opiates is greater than driving related deaths, and homicides (all of them) combined. We debate gun laws forever, nobody gives a fuck about the people dying from opiates. Its no longer a case of drifter junkies 'making a choice'. I have seen too many normal people get sucked into that world because doctors prescribed some crazy pharma shit for pain and then turned off the faucet cold turkey.

    113. Re: Seriously, America. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      "Caliphate" to describe London or Paris (never been to Malmo) is a hell of a stretch... but you're obviously trolling.

    114. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so instead of targeting guns, maybe we should get to the bottom of whats driving homicide. Banning sudafed sure as fuck didnt stop the use of meth. All it did was make it a real PITA for me when I actually need the shit. I have to get my ass to a pharacist between the hours of 9am and 8pm. If something comes up outside this time I have to deal with the problem until then.

        Its time to dig deeper and ignore the tool. Take guns away and IED's will just rise in their place just like israel. Its like getting rid of spiders in your house. You cant spray for them because they walk above the poison. Kill the other bugs and the spiders will die off all on their own. Banning guns based on statistics would easily justify revoking drivers licenses and mandating public transportation due to the massive amount of traffic deaths every year. In the end its still just another tool. Something has changed in the last 30 years that makes people massively more likely to commit homicide than in previous decades. It certainly is not proliferation of firearms. I the 70s and 80s you could go into a gun store and there would be an AR15, and an M16 side by side. The difference was the M16 required a $200 tax stamp and you waited a few weeks to get approved. That was a _real_ assault rifle. How is it in the 70s anybody could buy every form of weapon, including fully automatic, and the homicide rate is much higher now than its ever been; despite decades of gun control laws.

    115. Re: Seriously, America. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I keep checking the UK online press for the start of London's civil war between terrorists and moped criminals.

    116. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hmm maybe, if the ATF, in 2009, did not embark in a clever 'sting' operation that successfully sold millions of guns to the cartels. Only that 'sting' operation turned out to be a case of our law enforcement getting played for chumps and losing all those weapons.

      BTW another source of bad guys getting guns.... they buy them from dirty cops. No other theft required.

    117. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 3, Informative

      i assume you live somewhere that guns are not prevalent. This is nowhere near an accurate assumption. Most of those wild-west gun-slinging idiots you describe, turn out to be felons.

      "So how come you also get mass shootings in Texas?"

      doesnt it say something to you that all these mass shootings take place in a place that is either 'strickly gun free' or a place where nobody would think they needed to carry one (church)?

      Ive had a CCDW issued to me since 2000. Since that first church (the predominantly black one) got shot up in NC(SC?) I have started carrying even at times when I have no reason to suspect needing one. This means even to the gym using equipment. Its a shitty world we live in that even the taboo of killing 'in the house of god' doesn't scare people enough to wait until another time. Ever since that shooting I have been carrying something damn near everywhere I go. I do train, regularly. The idea of collateral damage is not lost on me. However, there is a very effective method of target acquisition that nearly eliminates this. Im guessing you didnt know that since you envision people just firing randomly like in the movies.

       

    118. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      As if there isnt room to talk about both, especially since increased gun control strongly correlates with a safer population and thus seems like a viable solution. For opiates crisis, we don't have a ton of good real world examples of solutions that I can think of off the top of my head.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    119. Re: Seriously, America. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Yep. And it's not nice.

    120. Re: Seriously, America. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      If a country of 6 million people has one mass shooting, of course their numbers will look higher. But looking at the number of occurrences and the totality of deaths, the U.S. leads the pack.

      Uh, why would you even want to look at the total number instead of adjusting it per capita? Adjusting it per capita seems like a reasonable thing to do........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    121. Re:Seriously, America. by e432776 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm curious as to why you think mandatory military service is a terrible idea. I can think of some reasons why it is a very good idea: 1) if you are going to have a standing military, it is better for it to be representative of society rather than a self-selected segment- the former probably more accountable to the whole 2) a representative military, drawn from all corners of society (as much as possible, anyway) is less likely to stand for unjustified/interminable wars (or at least there should be a higher threshold when its everyone's kids going) 3) an obligation of citizenship to to fight for and defend the nation if needed.

      Again, I'd be interested to know why you think mandatory service is terrible. I think more than a few of our current problems and wars stem from its absence.

    122. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems more likely that he went there carrying a concealed weapon with intent to use it, rather than "just in case I lose".

      There is a bigger problem than a bunch of Americans arguing about their right to own guns, and that is the lack of mental health support and screening for all the sad sorry losers that can't transition their minds into the modern era.

    123. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "so instead of targeting guns, maybe we should get to the bottom of whats driving homicide. Banning sudafed sure as fuck didnt stop the use of meth. All it did was make it a real PITA for me when I actually need the shit. I have to get my ass to a pharacist between the hours of 9am and 8pm. If something comes up outside this time I have to deal with the problem until then."

      We know severally limiting guns works because we can see it working in every other first world nation. As for finding what's driving homicide, we generally know that already, those problems are just very hard to fix like large scale wealth inequality.

      "Something has changed in the last 30 years that makes people massively more likely to commit homicide than in previous decades. "

      This couldn't be farther from the truth. Homicide rates have been pretty consistently dropping for the last thirty years https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... . News media sensationalism is what is at a thirty year high. ...and the rest of your post is predicated on your misunderstanding of this part of modern US history so that's it.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    124. Re: Seriously, America. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Well, you can sure always tell when the irrational lefty butt-hurt brigade shows up to express their frustration at being unable to make a salient point. At least you're predictable.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    125. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because my fellow citizens will save me, guns blazing, like they have done so many times. It is like a daily occurence. Citizen saves the day, citizen grabs a gun and saves dozens of people. You never hear anything other than that. Actually, I believe we may totally get rid of any actual police force, because the armed citizenry is so damn effective. You opened my eyes.

    126. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No shit sherlock.

      First you said "real capitalism has been tried. And it leads to hellholes that are even worse than Maoist China". Then you said "free-for-all capitalism is just another name for anarchy". The place you fucked up is when you assumed that it's the capitalism part of " free-for-all capitalism" which leads to anarchy, rather than the free-for-all part.

      You basically said "anarchism and capitalism leads to anarchy" and then tried to pretend that capitalism is the problem. What do you do for an encore? "Ice cream is bad because poisoned ice cream will kill you"?

    127. Re:Seriously, America. by Koby77 · · Score: 2

      This comes from the "There Ought To Be A Law" Department....

      There ought to be a law that says a business, if open to the public, can decide to outlaw firearms on their property, BUT they must also keep sufficient security on-hand to deal with any threats. As an example, most sports venues do this. If an incident occurs on the premises without security to deal with it, then the owner is jointly responsible for any damage, up-to and including wrongful death.

    128. Re:Seriously, America. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Anyone with a basic machine shop can make just about any sort of firearm they want.

      There are no countries which have banned firearms which don't have any firearms at all as a result.

      You can't stop people from getting a gun if they want one. You can only make it more difficult. Unfortunately, the side effect of any of the proposed ways of making it more difficult for someone who will misuse a gun to get one is that you make things more difficult on 99 other law-abiding people with an inherent right recognized in our Constitution to self-defense for every bad guy you inconvenience. In the end, the criminals will have guns because they want them more and don't care about following the law, while the most law-abiding will be disarmed.

      Not to mention that it's literally impossible to round up and destroy the existing firearms in the U.S. without causing a civil war where most of the military will be on the side of the other people with the guns.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    129. Re:Seriously, America. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      "An armed society is a polite society."

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    130. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Today America has one of the largest well equipped armies in the world, so it could be argued that the reason for the 2nd has gone away.

      You have no zero understanding of the US Constitution, it seems like.........

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

    131. Re:Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I won't tolerate mandatory anything, and I'm not the only one.

    132. Re:Seriously, America. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The good news is that mass shootings are down in the U.S. since the 90s and that homicides per capita are at about a 55 year low.

      Stuff making the news just increases availability bias and tricks people into thinking it's more common than it actually is.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    133. Re: Seriously, America. by peppepz · · Score: 1

      It's what was approved and written in the Constitution that counts. Letters, opinions, statements are not a source of law, no matter how prestigious the author is.

    134. Re:Seriously, America. by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to "do over"?

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    135. Re:Seriously, America. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nothings wrong with me. I just got back from the gun range.

      Chris Kyle was also at a gun range, surrounded by 2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners. Patriots It was the least gun-free zone on Earth.

      He was slaughtered in cold blood. All those guns and he ends up murdered.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    136. Re:Seriously, America. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Um, the table is per 100,000 people

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    137. Re: Seriously, America. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Well this is much clearer, with the period after "infringed" instead of the comma. It seems quite clear that the US does not stop arguing about what it means precisely because it is not so clear, as written in the amendment version. Like here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    138. Re: Seriously, America. by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America; where not being a total douchebag to other people is called "socialism" and is a bad thing.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    139. Re: Seriously, America. by Solandri · · Score: 2
      While more people are killed by guns (intentional homicide, not suicide) in the U.S. than in Western Europe, the number of gun fatalities is relatively small compared to other causes. The annual death rate for various causes (Table 7, p 35-36) works out to:
      • 258.9 per 100,000 - Heart disease
      • 185.4 per 100,000 - Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
      • 48.2 per 100,000 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases
      • 45.6 per 100,000 - Accidents (unintentional injuries)
        Breaks down to 14.8 for poison and drug overdoses, 11.7 for motor vehicle accidents, 10.4 for falls
      • 43.7 per 100,000 - Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
      • 34.4 per 100,000 - Alzheimerâ(TM)s disease
      • 24.7 per 100,000 - Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
      • 17.8 per 100,000 - Influenza and pneumonia
      • 15.5 per 100,000 - Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
      • 13.7 per 100,000 - Intentional self-harm (suicide)
      • 12.7 per 100,000 - Septicemia
      • 12.5 per 100,000 - Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
        Breaks down to 6.5 for alcoholic liver disease
      • 10.0 per 100,000 - Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease(hypertension)
      • 8.7 per 100,000 - Parkinsonâ(TM)s disease
      • 6.2 per 100,000 - Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids
      • 5.5 per 100,00 - Assault (homicide)
        Breaks down to 4.0 for homicide by gun

      So being killed (murdered) by gun is pretty far down the list. 4.0 per 100,000 works out to a 1 in 25,000 chance of being murdered by gun in any given year Any of the above causes are more likely to kill you.

    140. Re: Seriously, America. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thing is, "real capitalism" has been tried. And it leads to hellholes that are even worse than Maoist China.

      A good measure of "real capitalism" is the Ease of Doing Business Index which measures capitalist principles and the amount of government interference in starting and running a business.

      Here are the top 10 for 2018:
      1. New Zealand
      2. Singapore
      3. Denmark
      4. South Korea
      5. Hong Kong
      6. United States of America
      7. United Kingdom
      8. Norway
      9. Georgia
      10. Sweden

      Here are the bottom 10, which lack basic capitalist qualities of property rights, efficient enforcement of contracts, rule of law, and fair regulations:
      Haiti
      Congo
      Afghanistan
      Central African Republic
      Libya
      Yemen
      South Sudan
      Venezuela
      Eritrea
      Somalia

      Which are the hellholes?

    141. Re:Seriously, America. by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      surrounded by 2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners.

      [Citation needed]

      Did you forget that Chris Kyle wasn't the only person killed there? His friend Chad Littlefield was shot 7 times.

      Afterwards the killer left and drove to his sisters house where he confessed, and she called 911 to report what he had done.

      Are you suggesting that all of those '2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners' who surrounded him simply... froze, and didn't attempt to engage the killer... or call 911?

      Being armed doesn't guarantee you are going to be successful in defending your life, however it does significantly increase the odds.

    142. Re: Seriously, America. by novakyu · · Score: 1

      See: South Korea and Kuwait (and the entire Europe).

    143. Re:Seriously, America. by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's bullshit and you know it. The Texas church shooter had already done his deed and was fleeing the scene when the citizen intervened. Also, the citizen's choice of weapon had squat to do with ultimately stopping his escape. But - Hey! Keep living that Rambo fantasy!

      1. He was heading to another target to shoot more people.
      2. He was wearing body armor and the citizen with the AR-15 recognized that the type of armor he was wearing doesn't cover the sides. He specifically aimed at his sides for this reason. While behind a truck at a reasonably long distance. Yes, the choice of weapon made a big difference.

    144. Re:Seriously, America. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Because we don't need 4 million more soldiers in the military. The US military owes its superiority to tech, not manpower, and throwing more at it won't make it better.

      Besides, who's going to pay the cost of training them, housing them and feeding them? You?

    145. Re:Seriously, America. by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to why you think mandatory military service is a terrible idea.

      #1 The rich will weasel their way out of it. America loves privilege of wealth too much not to let that happen.

      #2 Unskilled human labor is going to be needed less and less as warfare becomes more automated. You probably won't need a bunch of grunts with guns, when you can just drone-swarm the enemy.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    146. Re:Seriously, America. by Powercntrl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "An armed society is a polite society."

      This along the same moronic line of thinking that lead to Google/Facebook/Twitter promoting the idea that if people used their real names, they'd be more civil towards each other. Yeah, that worked out really well.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    147. Re: Seriously, America. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      {...]a kind of Communist-lite where small businesses are allowed to exist but not thrive[...]

      Well, whether small businesses are allowed to exist but not to thrive because of the state or because of large corporations ... if you're fucked, you're fucked, who cares who fucks you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    148. Re: Seriously, America. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      The average Venezuelan has lost 32 lbs in the last two years.

      Sounds like a bit of socialism would be healthy for the US...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    149. Re: Seriously, America. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You could neck down a 223 and chamber an AR-15 in 6.35. Wouldn't be great, but long skinny bullet. Cost a few bucks for the custom barrel and gunsmithing.

      Likely have to keep the powder loads real lite.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    150. Re: Seriously, America. by houghi · · Score: 1

      So please let me know how that saved lives in this case.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    151. Re: Seriously, America. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Europe NEEDED adult supervision in 1946. Left to their own, 20 year cycle, maximum...WWIII.

      Couldn't leave it to the Brits and frogs. We either had to rearm the Germans and nuke the Ruskies or guard the place for a century. We choose wisely. Sucks we gotta listen to the Euro's verbal flatulence. Rusky leaders LARPING 'superpower' for domestic consumption.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    152. Re:Seriously, America. by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, I stopped reading when you started painting your rhetoric opposition as crybabies.

      Do you expect to be taken seriously when you are unable to actually deal with some arguments your opposition has?

      Now I'll be the first to admit that the pro-gun side has a lot of idiots and mind, I'd rather they didn't have guns either. Frankly, half the NRA shouldn't have guns. However, that is my personal opinion which is not valid enough to base legislation on, especially considering I'm not even American.

      The fact remains, though, that there are enough statistics that show that the availability of guns alone isn't the factor that determines violent crime. Any halfway sane person, at that point, should go "Well, gee, perhaps there are other issues as well?"

      Let's say America creates a prohibition on guns (I'm not even going to go into how bad America is at handling prohibitions...). What do you expect will happen? Violent crime using guns MAY go down. Abuse of legally owned guns will vanish, sure, because there won't be any more legal guns.

      Do you think there will be fewer robberies or murders? How well does it work out for countries like Great Britain?

      If you have a high rate of fucked up people in your country, you don't need to idiot proof the world. You need to take a long, hard look at yourself and admit that you, as a society, are doing something terribly wrong. Your rate of incarceration is astoundingly high while your crime rates are puttering on along the same lines as those of most other countries that don't have such draconian laws.

      Maybe start there before you go paint tens or even hundred's of thousands of law abiding citizens as potential murderers? It would have the advantage of bringing tangible benefit to all of society, too, even if you don't care about ever owning a gun yourself.

      Or are you actually trying to get fifty percent incarceration rates? Is there some kind of competition you're trying to win?

      I just can't understand how it's somehow more worthwhile to take something away from good people that they love instead of making sure you have a populace you can trust with those things. The latter may be harder but in the long run would have so many positive effects on all aspects of life I don't even know where to begin listing them.

    153. Re:Seriously, America. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Nothings wrong with me. I just got back from the gun range.

      Shooting is a lot of fun. I go to the gun range frequently too even after the gubmint took our guns and in the processes ended mass shootings.

    154. Re:Seriously, America. by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      And you're sure that those guns come from legally acquired private stock?

      Look, right now the Swiss government wants to adopt a EU law that would severely limit our current gun ownership rights. The reasoning is stopping terrorists.

      Only problem is,,, no self respecting terrorist ever shot up the place with a small caliber, semi-auto imitation of an AK-47. They have real, full-auto AKs from places like Ex-Yugoslavia.

      At the same time, and I shit you not, our government wants to relax rules on arms exports to "problematic" countries.

      And still anti-gun people want to tell me I'm overreacting when I say nuh-uh!

      In short: I have done everything according to the law to own guns. Now they want to take them away from ME, because some others MIGHT abuse these items (but have never done so in the past). They do this while finding it completely okay to export more efficient killing tools to countries which are rather suspect in the light of human rights and have active terrorist cells running around.

      This is like me going you can't have any more pretzels! A US president almost chocked on them! He might have died! He didn't, but just imagine what happens if my imagination runs with the idea and scores of kindergartners died due to pretzels tomorrow! So we'll ban pretzels because if we can even save one life, it'll be worth it!

      And I don't give a damn that guns have been invented to kill. It's true! I don't care, however. Guns have been invented mainly to kill with precision. No mass shooter has ever much cared for precision, always going for masses of people (hence the term) where they could have killed just as many or more with pipe bombs or trucks.

      And that's exactly what would happen. Instead of trying to secure one potentially dangerous item after the other from rogue elements, let's start asking ourselves why so many young men decide that killing others and then themselves is the way to go.

      In my eyes, your society has let down each and every mass shooter and subsequently their victims but not by banning guns but by creating a society that only rewards the winners, yet has rigged the marathon in such a way that some people get a 30km head start...

    155. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Uhm, you do realize the right in the US constantly request free for all capitalism, right?

      No, that's just another one of your silly misapprehensions.

      There's a constant stream of "we don't need regulation" and "the government needs to stop interfering"

      There's essentially nobody anywhere near the mainstream "right" who argues for zero regulation, so you're just flat out wrong. Even Friedman argued that regulation was needed in some rare situations. Zero regulation is more a position of the Libertarian party, and even there it's not a universally held opinion.

      Even those who do argue for zero regulation are arguing for zero regulation of economic activity by a central government. That is not a "free for all". Nobody is arguing that businesses should be allowed to murder, steal, commit fraud, or enslave people. They're speaking strictly about economic activity; buying and selling of goods and services. If you think there's any place in the world which descended into anarchy because the government didn't regulate buying and selling, you're a fool.

    156. Re:Seriously, America. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      In close quarters, that would actually be a disadvantage.

      Sure, you're every bit as dead if you get shot in the head with a 9mm slug versus a 40mm HE shell, but you can't deny that the Bofors has that intimidation factor as well as the retro-cool if you go for the L/60 model.

      But anyway it's just in case. You have a pistol. You back off and level your carbine at him. He backs off further and levels his AR-50. You back off yet further and level your Bofors. At this point it's a fairly safe bet he doesn't have a 155mm down his cargo shorts otherwise you'd need to whip out your BL14/45 Mark VIIs at which point it's really got silly.

      You see a good guy with a gun can only reliably stop a bad guy with a gun if the good guy has greater range.

      Not to mention the high risk of scratching your paint while getting in and out of your car.

      Go for a towed mount. Then, if you have a really persistent tailgaiter, you can get your passenger to hop out of the cab, over the tailgate and level it at the asshole behind you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    157. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      We have this little structural problem: ratification of Amendments requires a 3/4 supermajority of states (NOT population - they're treated like individual countries in this respect) to ratify. That's 37 in the current scenario. That means it takes 14 states to block one -- and the least populous 14 states make up 5% of the national population. They're also the ones with the most open space, where owning a gun is not only not much of a problem, but a necessity for some. You only need a bit more than half of those in each of those states, but even if you count all of the people in those states, that's still the tyranny of the 5 percent nation.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    158. Re:Seriously, America. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Cities can't even ban guns from government offices and children's playgrounds.

      Quite right. Those little shits can really bite.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    159. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      How about Brazil? Their homicide rate is 55 per 100,000 -- a whole order of magnitude (and change) greater! And they have strict gun control, but that only applies to the law-abiding. Criminals, meanwhile, are getting their guns from the police. Now there is a movement to basically scrap it and go with an American-style right to bear arms.

      I deliberately linked NPR, not a gun advocacy site, but the articles really aren't that much different between them.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    160. Re: Seriously, America. by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      "We're down to about 3% of Americans owning guns legally"

      That looked obviously wrong and so it is.

      Only a quarter of Americans own guns, according to numbers from General Social Survey and Gallup in 2013.

      But

      The US tops the list of countries with the most guns, owning about half the world's guns while making up only 5% of the world population. In relative terms, the US has the highest number of guns per capita. There were an estimated 89 to 100 guns for every 100 Americans in 2013

      How many guns you got?

      The average American gun owner owns three guns, according to a 2015 survey conducted by Harvard and Northwestern University. More than a half of them own just one or two, whereas 14% of them - 7.7 million or 3% of the US population - own anywhere between eight to 140 guns. This 3% of the population owns half of the civilian guns in the US.

      https://qz.com/1095899/gun-own...

    161. Re:Seriously, America. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ad-hominin. Nice. For the record, the person you are replying to is right. Because they were not triggered by seeing my username they were able to correctly interpret my post.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    162. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Here's an editorial piece from Bloomberg, since the NPR article doesn't reference the "leaking" of guns from the police to the criminal sector.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    163. Re: Seriously, America. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Oh, and violent sports (NFL) and violent video games (Madden).

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    164. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Our guns don't matter. You can't because you don't have the votes for it and you know it. Support for the 2nd amendment is above 50% generally, and higher among those that bother to vote, it will take the support of roughly 67% of the voting public to amend the 2nd out of existence. (actually 51% of the votes in 2/3 of the states.)

    165. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Anyone with a basic machine shop can make just about any sort of firearm they want.

      Your point being?
      That doesn't qualify as "easy". It's orders of magnitude more difficult for Average Joe in Poland to illegally manufacture a gun, make the bullets, test it and carry it around (any of the above being severely punished with years of jail time), than it is for Average Joe in the USA to enter a shop and leave with pretty much anything they want in terms of firearms.

      There are no countries which have banned firearms which don't have any firearms at all as a result.

      So what? Nobody talked about absolutes.

      You can't stop people from getting a gun if they want one. You can only make it more difficult. Unfortunately, the side effect of any of the proposed ways of making it more difficult for someone who will misuse a gun to get one is that you make things more difficult on 99 other law-abiding people with an inherent right recognized in our Constitution to self-defense for every bad guy you inconvenience.

      That's why I said USA is completely screwed in that regard and can't undo this even if they wanted to. That inherent right became obsolete many decades ago but due to various parties with an agenda it never got reconsidered. And here you are.

      Not to mention that it's literally impossible to round up and destroy the existing firearms in the U.S. without causing a civil war where most of the military will be on the side of the other people with the guns.

      Yup. You're screwed.
      I am not advocating introduction of gun control in the USA. I am smart enough to realize it's impossible. You're screwed for good, period.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    166. Re: Seriously, America. by butzwonker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bernie Sanders understands the concept very well, he has deliberately chosen to use the term "socialism" for his particular US-centred vision of social democracy in order to provoke. It's a regrettable terminological choice that would only work in the US where few have a clue about these terms. Socialism and social democracy have nothing to do with each other, in fact quite a few social democrats were put into Gulags by socialists and communists, as well as into concentration camps and prisons by the Nazis.

      What you call social liberalism is something else, there is a left-wing tradition of liberalism since Adam Smith addressed the Social Question of the 19th Century.

    167. Re:Seriously, America. by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I have discussed this with my American friends several times. I live in a gun free (mostly) country and when I visit the US, my friends usually take me shooting, bring enough guns to outfit the army of a small country and they keep putting different things in my hands, one after another. I mean on a personal level I love shooting, but that doesn't mean I am pro or contra carry.

      My American friends (even the 2A folks) agree with me that in a un free country like mine, restricting guns can work because you don't get an arms race between good and bad people (and the cops). Having a gun as a criminal, in my country, makes anything you do infinitely more serious. Even burglars typically don't have guns. Not introducing guns makes for an overall safer society if we simply go by the numbers.

      But in a country like the US, that simply is no longer an option. That ship has sailed. And without wanting to go into a political / moral discussion about the right to bear arms: restricting guns in the US, like in my country, simply doesn't work. And that is not even taking into account that there are vast rural places in the US where you need guns for safety. Not only because cops can be hours away, but also because you can regularly encounter moose, coyote and bears, depending on where you live.

    168. Re:Seriously, America. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that adding more guns to that situation would only have raised the body count.

      For one thing at least three gun carriers would've shot at each other and not the original assailant. Then there's the additional casualties when they missed. And given that one of the dead was probably killed with the first shot, and one was killed with the last, there's basically a maximum of one death that even could have been prevented.

      No, probably for the best that there wasn't a firefight.

    169. Re:Seriously, America. by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      I also bet you some amount of trash talk went on.
      Competitive games just seem to bring out the worst in some people. It's not a wonder someone eventually took out their gun after being called a worthless scrub.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    170. Re:Seriously, America. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Then you can repeal the second amendment, as an untrained militia is going to be categorically worse than a trained one, and you're suggesting a trained one is worthless.

      But tell me, how do drones search properties, man roadblocks, deliver food, build relationships? The average soldier spends around 0.003% of their military time in combat.

    171. Re:Seriously, America. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Do you think there will be fewer robberies or murders? How well does it work out for countries like Great Britain?

      Well, we have less crime than the US. But we did before we implemented the current restrictions on firearms, so it's not really a useful comparison.

    172. Re:Seriously, America. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      "You must be a WINNER!!" culture.

      (and where anyone who is not a winner then is a loser and allocated to die for lack of resources since the winner takes everything.)

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    173. Re:Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      We have more people - 320 million or more, so there's more of everything that is people-related.

    174. Re: Seriously, America. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, Just because one portion of the nation seems to have no regard for laws does not constitute a good reason to disarm the rest of the nation. You sir sound like a traitor.

    175. Re:Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "I hope so too because people don't have guns pointed at everyone all the time, so abject helplessness when someone with a gun approaches is pretty much the status quo. Yes, perhaps one person with a gun will draw, old west style, and gun them down after shooting a few people. The reality, though, is less guns tends to mean less guns drawn on people who are inherently helpless, armed or not."

      No, they don't draw "old west style", facing each other at high noon on main street. They draw like, 'this guy was shooting everyone, and I was behind him so I drew my gun and blew his brains out before he could turn around and shoot me.' There's no "code of the west" when someone starts shooting everyone, there is only survival and protecting the innocent. If all the good guys have guns, the bad guy gets outnumbered 50 or 100 to one and is cut down in the 1st 10 seconds of his rampage, and become 1 of th 2 or 3 victims, rather than 10 - 20 victims.

      All these mass shootings are happening in "gun free zones." We are apparently slow learners that it is the gun free zones that enable these things.

    176. Re:Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The reason they show up after the fact is that there are so few of them, armed good guys, that is, and they have to come from a distance, usually, since the scene of the mass shooting is almost always a "gun free zones" where good guys don't bring their guns, only bad guys have guns in gun free zones. The shooting of congressperson Gabby Giffords is one of the very few recent mass shootings that wasn't in a gun free zone, and then there still wasn't anyone there except the shooter that had a gun, still because of all the gun control laws and the failed idea that it's a good thing not to carry a gun. Its not. People who are capable to carry a gun should carry a gun, to protect themselves and others. It should be a civic duty for people to carry a gun to prevent these mass shootings if nothing else.

    177. Re:Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Most of us are good guys. We outnumber bad guys 50 to one, easily.

    178. Re:Seriously, America. by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      a representative military, drawn from all corners of society (as much as possible, anyway) is less likely to stand for unjustified/interminable wars (or at least there should be a higher threshold when its everyone's kids going)

      You think, even if this were to happen, that everyone's kid would go to war? Nope. The poor kids get assigned infantry or other front line roles while the rich kids (who are most likely better educated) get assigned staff positions, stateside postings, or other rear echelon roles such as logistics or intelligence, keeping them as safe as possible.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    179. Re: Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      NK & Iran could be quite capable of killing the whole USA, 90% of the population, with 1 nuke exploded over the center of the country 300 miles high. Its called an EMP attack - readers of this forum should be knowledgeable enough about science to know how that works. So... yeah... we're going to tell them they can't have nukes because they are batshit crazy enough to try that. The Russians were at least rational and not religious fuckwads that didn't care if we destroyed their entire country in retaliation, they cared. The religious nutjobs and the totally insane assholes in NK maybe not so much. We can't take that chance, so we need to remove the nukes from them, even if we have to invade to do it. Diplomacy would be a much better way, but either way, the nukes must go.

    180. Re:Seriously, America. by Hasaf · · Score: 1

      People tent to overlook this in favor of the the recency bias and the availability heuristic.

      Recency Bias: The phenomenon of a person most easily remembering something that has happened recently, compared to remembering something that may have occurred a while back.

      Availability Heuristic: The tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be.

      Over the summer I read Stephen Pinker's book, The better angels of our nature. It was a great look at the "de-violencing" (not a real word) of society. This is a trend that has been going on for centuries. As a Gen-X'er I remember the expectations of the 80s'. The flood of "crack babies" was going to leave is living in a Mad Max distopia. It didn't happen.

      So, why the shocking headlines? Why do we hear of this carnage. There are two drivers, and when we think about them, they are obvious. The first is the old adage "If it bleeds, it leads." The second is also one we are aware of, the ease of communication has made isolated instances visible to all.

      The reality is that we are less likely to die of violent ends than at any other time in History. Yes, we need to strive for more, we need to do better; but we are doing quite well.

    181. Re:Seriously, America. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Because, of course, guns don't just magically disintegrate when entering a "gun free zone."

      Hmm, now there's a technological "solution" ;)

    182. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Great, underpaid third world cups sell their guns. What's your point?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    183. Re:Seriously, America. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      It also creates an environment where people don't have to feel intimated by others (good business sense for a restaurant).

      Ah, I was wondering why nobody ever feels intimidated on the streets and in the establishments of the major gun control enclaves.

    184. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      That's just genius, you're comparing our gun violence problem with that of a third world country.

      It's a third world country with high levels of corruption in government, massive poverty, and massive wealth inequality. The only thing that would be surprising is if it didn't have a higher homicide rate than ours.

      Relative to other countries that are actually similar to our own (other first world countries), our homicide rate is on average 5 times higher then any other with stricter gun control laws. Even the next closest is multiple full percentage points lower then us. That is a meaningful comparison.

      You might as well be saying "No it's not important that the US middle class has been shrinking for the last half century because it's still bigger then a third world country's!". No shit it is, this comparison is just as stupid.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    185. Re: Seriously, America. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Can you name one such "real capitalism" that was "worse than Maoist China"? The USA's invasion and theft of the land belonging to the native population and the "Vale of Tears" was the closest example I can thnk of.

    186. Re: Seriously, America. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great place. Good thing they banned guns. Keep up the good work, Hugo!

      USA: Safer than Venezuela!

      I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.

      As opposed to you know the massive piles of everything else.

      What next? The US has way fewer people murdered by the state than North Korea. Must be because NK has strict gun control. I can't see any oter reason and if you ban guns you'll be just like NK.

      Seriously though if you actually like your conutry can you please raise the bar a little higher than you currently have it?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    187. Re:Seriously, America. by houghi · · Score: 1

      "Correlation is not causation."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    188. Re:Seriously, America. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Criminals typically spend their time shooting each other. It's when you have normal people who are armed that someone gets their feelings hurt and takes it out on groups of random strangers.

      Conflating gun laws, criminality and homicide is just a distraction. In pretty much every country where strict gun laws are enforced, random mass killings have become a footnote of history.

    189. Re: Seriously, America. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Well, duh, the gun control laws is what changed.

      Might I speak as someone who remembers the 1960's? What changed is far, far less national press, far less garish reporting of what were considered local stories, and daily reporting about far larger scale shootings in the Vietnam war. Angry young men were also draftable, and were offered military service rather than jail time.

    190. Re:Seriously, America. by Talderas · · Score: 2

      The United States is in too many conflicts. Increasing the manpower in the military just makes it easier to deploy US units overseas on "peacekeeping" missions.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    191. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      You think historically corrupt "Boss Hogg" jurisdictions aren't a risk to do the same here?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    192. Re: Seriously, America. by houghi · · Score: 2

      So wning a weapon was to protect against the governement, not against other citizens who might have guns.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    193. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No because we are not a third world nation with underpaid cops and massively corrupt government.

      Furthermore, just take a look at every first world nation with stricter gun control laws then us. Yes, they also have occasional problems with corrupt police like we do but their gun violence and homicide rates remain incredibly low compared to ours.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    194. Re: Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      I don't know about less National press. I lived the 60's too, and the press was actually presses, and made newspapers, and people actually read 'em. Chet and David, as well as Walter, were on the tube every night of at least the weekdays, and people actually tuned them. I believe the mass shooting of the decade was the Texas Tower incident, and not coincidentally, it was an armed citizen and a cop together that sneaked up there and stopped the shooter. That had lots of coverage, and was very unusual at the time. It wouldn't be all that unusual today, so I don't agree. I think its mostly the gun control laws that are enabling these shootings.

    195. Re:Seriously, America. by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but for gun fetishists, shooting a fleeing suspect is the best thing ever and counts as 'stopping them'.

    196. Re: Seriously, America. by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like bolt action rifles are all that's needed to satisfy his requirement. I guess we can legally ban every other firearm then, agreed?

    197. Re:Seriously, America. by jythie · · Score: 1

      Let us also not forget, the bulk of the shootings in the US involve a 'good guy' with a gun who is just one argument away from becoming a 'bad guy'. People act like there is some criminal class that is somehow distinct from us 'normal' people, but most murders are just normal people who happen to have a gun nearby when a conflict escalates.

    198. Re:Seriously, America. by jythie · · Score: 1

      I would not take that piece too seriously, since it includes situations where there was no actual threat in the first place. Any case of 'I felt scared and pointing a gun at someone caused things to go my way'. DGU just means that the person used a gun to get their way but did not kill someone.

    199. Re:Seriously, America. by jythie · · Score: 1

      Ahm, the homicide rate in the US is the lowest it has been since the mid 60s. It spiked in 1972, 1980, and 1990. The 24/7 news cycle and culture of fear has really warped our ideas of how common something is.. but in general, if it is front page news, it is really damn rare.

    200. Re:Seriously, America. by jythie · · Score: 1

      The bulk of the time, the attacker will be another 'good guy', meaning the fewer good guys that have guns the less often an attacker will have one.

    201. Re:Seriously, America. by jythie · · Score: 1

      Protect themselves and others from unarmed people you mean. A goodguy with a gun you fail to show proper respect for becomes a bad guy real fast.

    202. Re: Seriously, America. by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      750 comments and FINALLY someone asks a relevant question. How did this affect the resulting scores?

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    203. Re:Seriously, America. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to why you think mandatory military service is a terrible idea.

      A voluntary military is more reliable.

      A voluntary military doesn't develop resentment for their forced enslavement into military service.

      A voluntary military is less of a waste of money.

      A voluntary military experiences fewer incidents of dead drill sergeants and hijacked military bases.

      Our nation is built on popular sovereignty and the right to life, liberty, and property; it's not a dictatorial oligarchy where we decide your job is "soldier" and send Politburo to fetch you for duty.

    204. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      as a whole yes, but this new im-going-out-and-taking-as-many-as-i-can-with-me part is very new. Yes news sensationalizes is, but if were happening in the 80s it would have gotten sensationalized then too. The closest we ever got was the postal workers. The phrase 'going postal' to imply mass shootings. Nobody screamed disarm the public. They said 'what the fuck is going on at the post office??' and proceeded to get to the bottom of whatever was driving this level of stress and disparity. Shit doesn't happen any more. As long as two people hate each other with out of check anger, there is going to be homicide. Usually its limited to just the one person, or sometimes unintended collateral damage with gang-bangers shoot it out. Deciding life sucks and your going to start your own afterlife following like in Poltergeist 2, thats a different kind of broken mindset all together. Its nothing rational that laws are going to fix any easier than the 900 times they tried to ban substances to curtail the manufacture of meth. They just come up with another way.

    205. Re:Seriously, America. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We've found that many people who are armed are simply more belligerent because if you don't stfu you're going to get shot in the face.

      The basic premise of an armed society being "polite" suggests a fear of repercussions. An armed society is a fearful society; thus an armed society will tend to raise arms frequently against constant perception of danger. This means more attacks and more homicides.

      Actual data suggests RTC increases the homicide growth rate by 14%.

    206. Re:Seriously, America. by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      That's a fantasy. Real good guys ignore such people. Its the bad guys that are always concerned with "respect" and take offense at the slightest perceived insult. That's what makes them bad guys.

    207. Re: Seriously, America. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education ... Socialism = drinking water, interstate highways, college tuition assistance programs

      Irony.

      Your fascism is showing.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    208. Re: Seriously, America. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Think about it, what value is there to a right to be armed if you cannot assemble as a Militia?

      Does this imply that there is no value in gun ownership outside membership in a militia? From your wording , it sounds that way. The vast, vast majority of gun owners are not members of a militia. Since militias have since been replaced by a standing army, is private gun ownership obviated by the US military?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    209. Re:Seriously, America. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The fact remains, though, that there are enough statistics that show that the availability of guns alone isn't the factor that determines violent crime.

      Of course it isn't. We need a better criminal justice system targeting redress and rehabilitation instead of punishment and dehumanization.

      Do you think there will be fewer robberies or murders?

      Murders. Empirical evidence shows removing uncontrolled guns and removing access to firearms by people who are at-risk reduces the number of murders and suicides.

      Domestic violence convicts and those who are suicidal tend to more-frequently commit domestic murder or suicide if they have access to firearms. Removal of the firearms reduces the number of both.

      More-generally, the amount of homicide due to civil disagreement decreases with lower firearms ownership (this is more cultural than legal: you can't prohibit all firearms, although you can restrict their carry in schools and such). The amount of criminal firearms carry reduces when firearms are harder to obtain: criminals with high risk (e.g. drug gangs) will take high risks to get a firearm, while low-risk criminals (burglars, etc.) with no occupational hazard of being gunned down by other criminals in turf wars generally don't bother unless firearms are easy to come by.

      Gun control policies have boundaries and diminishing returns. You get large returns for the basics, and thereafter you don't gain much ground by removing firearms.

    210. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      "Well regulated" does not mean that the fed has authority over an individual's right to bear arms. There are dozens of citations of what the founding fathers / authors meant by this but I'm too lazy to comb through them all for the best so here are two somewhat random ones:

      • Patrick Henry:“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
      • Thomas Jefferson:“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
      • George Mason:“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
    211. Re: Seriously, America. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Heart disease is solvable with a little tampering.

    212. Re: Seriously, America. by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Here are the bottom 10, which lack basic capitalist qualities of property rights, efficient enforcement of contracts, rule of law, and fair regulations:

      I think wikipedia is using a definition of capitalism that is no longer popular here in the USA - at least with the Paulower / Randian capitalist republicans who particularly dominate (in volume) the debate here on slashdot and in other places.

      The verses we keep hearing are that capitalism should get government out of the way (ie, "government you can drown in a bathtub") in terms of property rights, contracts, regulations, and even rule of law. In other words the fact that those 10 countries scored so low on those categories makes them Randian capitalist paradise. Employers are free there to fuck each other and their employees to no end, which is exactly what US capitalists drool over today.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    213. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      The US is safer than most of the world not just Venezuela. There are 320 million people in the US. That's almost half the population of the entire continent of Europe. There will always be violence somewhere in the US but half of that is strictly black on black inner city violence. When you exclude the black population, we're as safe as ye ol countries of Scandinavia.

    214. Re:Seriously, America. by thomst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      https://slashdot.org/~_Sharp'r_ quoted RAH thusly:

      "An armed society is a polite society."

      Y'know, I've been a fan of Robert A. Heinlein's literally since I was six years old. I've read all his fiction, and much of his non-fiction, as well (Grumbles from the Grave is pretty darned entertaining, believe it or not). And the thing is that, even when I first read Beyond This Horizon - from whence that quote is taken - at the age of eight or so, I knew enough to take it as a premise for the world RAH built to set that story in, rather than any sort of universal truth.

      And that, in turn, is because there is ZERO real-world evidence of that proposition's truth - nor was there any such evidence available to Heinlein when he made that statement. Instead, as a writer of fiction, he set out to explore a world that was based on that proposition, as a source of the conflict his protagonist must resolve to move the book's plot to its resolution.

      The inescapable fact is that in the present day, there are quite a few armed societies we can study to provide evidence for or against the truth of RAH's proposition - and, frankly, it doesn't hold water.

      Heinlein imagined a world in which a formalized code duello made it possible for people who choose to go armed to fight to the death over insults, but that specifically exempted those who choose not to arm themselves. In that world, challenging, menacing, or targeting anyone who is NOT visible carrying is automatically treated as a felonious criminal act to which all armed bystanders are obligated to respond with deadly force. In the actual, phenomenological world in which real people live, that kind of social firewall just doesn't exist. Live in, say, Afghanistan, or the DRC, or Iraq, or Somalia, or - well, anywhere other than the USA where some significant portion of the local population routinely goes strapped, and another percentage does not, the unarmed ones are simply not, as a rule, routinely provided protection by the civilian folks with guns. (Or by local militias, for that matter.)

      Instead, the armed population essentially does as it pleases, and the unarmed ones keep their heads down and their mouths shut - from fear for their lives, and the lives of their loved ones, against whom retaliation is to be expected, for those who are foolish enough to make themselves targets by, for example, standing up to armed teenage bullies, professional predators, or adherents of a different belief system than those locals who go armed.

      The same was true of the American West in the 19th century. That's why one of the first institutions that arose in any newly-settled area was formally-constituted and empowered law enforcement: local constables, county sheriffs, U.S. marshalls, Texas Rangers, and so on.

      In point of fact, all the evidence is that an armed, non-fictional society is a polite one only when its armed members are forced by laws and law enforcement personnnel to behave themselves. Because people - and especially young men - are, by default, basically assholes when they suddenly acquire the means to impose their will on others with impunity.

      It has nothing whatever to do with self-defense. It's about self-aggrandizement, and the addictive pleasure of forcing others to bend to your will. Everything else - everything - is post hoc rationalization.

      Note that I'm not talking about rural folks who use firearms to control the local varmint population, nor am I talking about those who use guns to hunt for food, or strictly for target shooting. I'm talking here about urban and suburban Americans who fetishize gun ownership and fantasize that they are somehow capable of effectively resisting government authorities, should they feel the need to revolt against authority - despite the fact that small arms are essentially worthless against trained military personnel armed with everything from satellite-directed drones to B1 bombers to tanks to RPGs and ...

      You get the p

      --
      Check out my novel.
    215. Re:Seriously, America. by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      What's your next guess? Guns are used defensively about two and a half million times a year in the USA

      And yet the USA has a higher homicide rate and a higher rate of mass shootings than any other first world nation,

      It's clear that people can and do use guns for self-defence, but simply stating the number of times that has been done, or even saying as the article does that they're used more often for defence than attacks does not tell you whether or not they make you safer as a whole.

      Guns are very rarely used for self-defence by civilians here in Finland (mainly because most of the guns are for hunting, and carry permits are not issued except to cops) and yet I'm still on average less likely to become the victim of a homicide or violent crime here than in the US.

      The point here is not to say that guns are the only explaining factor for these differences, they're obviously not. The point is just to highlight that a stat like 'the amount of times guns are used for defence' does not by itself tell you anything about their effect on overall safety.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    216. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unskilled human labor is going to be needed less and less as warfare becomes more automated. You probably won't need a bunch of grunts with guns, when you can just drone-swarm the enemy.

      Then you can repeal the second amendment, as an untrained militia is going to be categorically worse than a trained one, and you're suggesting a trained one is worthless.

      Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment is in part about self-defense, as well as national defense. Its authors made this clear in other writings they authored about it at the time. Avoiding the need for a standing militia was not the only reason. And they did not imply that a trained military is worthless, you inferred that. The writer is only responsible for their implications, not your inference.

      But tell me, how do drones search properties,

      In the future, the same way we do. Right now, they don't.

      man roadblocks,

      Telepresence, sentry gun. Automatically-raising bollards, which can be implemented as temporary speed humps.

      deliver food,

      Drones have already been demo'd making deliveries.

      build relationships?

      You're not going to replace every soldier with a drone, but you can replace many of them.

      The average soldier spends around 0.003% of their military time in combat.

      That will drop even further. Perhaps less emphasis can then be placed on combat training and more on training for the job they do the majority of the time already.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    217. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      That would be a difficult position to defend since the primary reason for the second amendment was to defend oneself from an oppressive federal government. I think it a much easier argument that with a standing army... the second amendment (preserving as much potential for force as possible with the people) is of even more importance.

    218. Re:Seriously, America. by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The reason they show up after the fact is that there are so few of them, armed good guys, that is, and they have to come from a distance, usually, since the scene of the mass shooting is almost always a "gun free zones" where good guys don't bring their guns, only bad guys have guns in gun free zones. The shooting of congressperson Gabby Giffords is one of the very few recent mass shootings that wasn't in a gun free zone, and then there still wasn't anyone there except the shooter that had a gun, still because of all the gun control laws and the failed idea that it's a good thing not to carry a gun. Its not. People who are capable to carry a gun should carry a gun, to protect themselves and others. It should be a civic duty for people to carry a gun to prevent these mass shootings if nothing else.

      There never going to be that many "armed good guys", you can remove every gun reg out there and armed carriers will still be a tiny minority of the population.

      And mass shooting are still incredibly rare events, the number of additional guns you'd need to achieve the necessary "armed good guy" density is going to lead to a huge number of fatalities in new shootings. We still don't know the motive here, but there's a possibility that the shooter originally bought his gun with the expectation that he'd be a good guy with a gun. People sometimes lose control.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    219. Re: Seriously, America. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Somehow, that wasn't what the shooter praised. The killer was a member of "Anti-Trump Resistance".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    220. Re:Seriously, America. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that all of those '2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners' who surrounded him simply... froze, and didn't attempt to engage the killer... or call 911?

      It's not clear to me whether anyone else was around. If there was, I'm sure they called 911 to get help for the victims, but assuming Routh dropped the guns and left immediately there would have been no legal justification for them to engage him. Citizens may use deadly force to stop an imminent threat of death or serious injury and for no other reason. Police have a little more latitude in the law (they can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon) and a lot more in practice, but citizens who kill a fleeing, unarmed criminal can be prosecuted for murder.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    221. Re:Seriously, America. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You appear to have no military experience at all.

      Drones can't search property, telepresence is fuck all use at a roadblock, food delivery that can be easily hacked, stolen, diverted or otherwise interrupted isn't food delivery at all and then you finally acknowledge that we need soldiers.

      Surprise surprise. But.. what are your real reasons for not wanting conscription, given the ones you provided are utter bollocks?

    222. Re:Seriously, America. by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      That is utterly false. There is indeed a murderer class in the US. It is just politically incorrect to officially notice it.

      Homicide rate in North Chicago: 25 / 100,000

      Now figure out what the difference between the north and south is. Control for income. The answer is clear as day.

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

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    223. Re:Seriously, America. by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what happened to the first part, the figures are:

      Homicide rate in North Chicago: <4 / 100,000
      Homicide rate in South Chicago: >25 / 100,000

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    224. Re:Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      The main thing is that some of us blame whole groups of people for the actions of unrelated individuals.

      You wouldn't know anything about that though, would you?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    225. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You appear to have no military experience at all.

      Correct, and I'm proud to not have supported the war machine. The most useful advice my father (who was a Marine ATC in Korea) ever gave me was not to enlist and become a slave to the MIC.

      Drones can't search property,

      Yet.

      telepresence is fuck all use at a roadblock,

      It's used in security every day and it works fine.

      food delivery that can be easily hacked,

      To you, drone means easily hacked? We're attaching weapons to drones and using them to blow up weddings, why aren't those easily hacked?

      and then you finally acknowledge that we need soldiers.

      I never said otherwise. The starting argument was that we would need less soldiers, which is exactly what I said. I know you want me to be wrong, but mischaracterizing what I said doesn't make me wrong, it makes you wrong.

      what are your real reasons for not wanting conscription,

      I am opposed to slavery.

      I know that standing militaries are harmful to freedom.

      I do not want us to have still more military might that we don't need, because history shows us that we will use it to invade other countries specifically for economic gain.

      Given that conscription is slavery for the benefit of corporations, why do you support slavery?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    226. Re: Seriously, America. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "The founding fathers were no dummies, and the Amendment was purposefully worded in
      that way for that reason. ..."

      Ummmm.... The amendment was influenced by the early gun lobby which was instrumental to the creation of the country.

      There's no 220 years of foresight going on here. There were practical needs which were very real and present.

      The gun industry was also not about megafactories pumping out consumer products, but about small mechanical works and tooling throughout the country.

      The skills spilled into other industries. It's hard to draw parallels to the modern world here.

      The incredible foresight into some statement about modern democracies is BS.

    227. Re: Seriously, America. by judoguy · · Score: 1

      You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education and move straight to a basic civics class. The 2nd amendment is already a limited right in our country.

      The Second Amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms. It's intended to keep the government from infringing on that right.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    228. Re:Seriously, America. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Well now, who said I support conscription?

      I don't however view it as slavery. People get paid and expecting people to contribute to their society does not equate to enslaving them.

      Given that military missions are primarily humanitarian in nature I'm also entirely comfortable that a standing army is not a corporate tool, and does not exist to invade other countries for economic gain.

      I also recognise that economic security is something people expect their government to provide.

      But hey, continue to spout shit about things you're proud to have never had to learn..

    229. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      If this guy is later revealed to be a person who is on psychotropic substances or who recently stopped taking said substances, like many other spree shooters, what will you say about mental health support then?

      With so many killers associated with drugs like Prozac, and with so many people saying we need better mental health support to stop spree killers, I wonder if people actually know what the fuck they are talking about.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    230. Re: Seriously, America. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.

      I love how you read one thing and then make up something completely different. You must be one of them artsy fartsy creative types.

    231. Re: Seriously, America. by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I didn't say we have to disarm the nation. Try again

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    232. Re: Seriously, America. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      You'd have to neck UP a .223 to 6.35mm. The standard bullet is 5.56mm.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    233. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      He went home, got the gun, and came back, according to other reports I've read. Seems they'd know that from security footage showing him leaving and returning some time later.

      That said, your second paragraph nailed it. Absent the gun he may have been unstable enough to buy a few gallons of diesel and a couple bags of fertilizer instead.

      Personally, I prefer the gun.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    234. Re:Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There is actually a short story, I believe by John Brunner, where a father is taking revenge at the killer of his son. The background is that all cars are armored and armed, his son "lost" against an overpowerd other guy, and the father killed him later by dropping two anti tank mines in front of him.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    235. Re:Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      and then there still wasn't anyone there except the shooter that had a gun
      There were minimum 2 guys: guy one who took down the shooter (without killing him) and guy two - arriving late, who thought guy one was the shooter, and nearly killed guy one.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    236. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I love how you compare the USA to poor conutries with massive problems (as opposed to dirst world nations) then conclude that the main cause for difference is the laws on guns.

      I love how you ignore that someone else, with an anti-gun bent, opened that can of worms. It's okay to compare the first- and third-world when arguing one side, but not the other? Well, then, how is one supposed to properly respond to that argument?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    237. Re: Seriously, America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And, it appears that the weapon was a simple handgun....not the "scary" AR type semi-automatic rifles.

      Are people seriously thinking we can ban all guns in the US, even handguns?

      Actually, I forecast, that since this shooting didn't involve a scary AR type rifle...that this even will drop off the news rather quickly like the last few shootings that involved shotguns, or hand guns, since those don't fit within the Anti-Gun's arguments about "full semi-auto" rifles...or "assault" rifles like the AR and its ilk.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    238. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not clear to me whether anyone else was around. If there was, I'm sure they called 911 to get help for the victims, but assuming Routh dropped the guns and left immediately there would have been no legal justification for them to engage him. Citizens may use deadly force to stop an imminent threat of death or serious injury and for no other reason.

      While this is correct, it is not the entire picture. In states which permit citizen's arrest, citizens may use necessary force to execute a lawful arrest if they witness a misdemeanor or have reason to believe that a felony has been committed. If during the course of the arrest it becomes necessary to defend oneself, then one can do that, including the use of lethal force.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    239. Re:Seriously, America. by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Ad-hominin. Nice.

      Actually quite the opposite -- you might recheck your pocket dictionary on that one.

      Because they were not triggered by seeing my username they were able to correctly interpret my post.

      Looks to me like the mods called it correctly. Be seeing you....

    240. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So the 2nd was intended to prevent us from forming a standing army that might be abused by tyrants... and us now having a large standing army that might be abused by tyrants is a reason we don't need the 2nd amendment? If anything, the opposite is true.

      But you go ahead and repeal the 2nd, thinking you'll just defend yourself with a knife, or a club, or pepper spray, or your keys, or a rick you found on the ground, or a stick... go ahead and do that.

      All of those things are arms.

      Which you must keep, bear, or both, in order to use.

      The 2nd protects that, as well.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    241. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called. There's no delays wondering about the person's motives are because they are breaking the law just by having a gun in that place.

      No, but there is a delay between calling the cops, and the moment when the cops appear (if they even bother to show up, which depends on economic boundaries.) When you need a cop within seconds, they are at least minutes away. So-called gun-free zones accomplish little but denotation of the ideal places to commit a mass shooting. (Some may help reduce crimes of passion, inflamed by alcohol.)

      Let me tell you from personal experience there's nothing like being in an open carry state, having a minor disagreement with some one and having them draw attention to the fact that they are carrying a gun in that context.

      Sure, that's scary. And if they do that, you can call the police and make their lives harder. But you know what's even more scary? Anyone could be carrying a concealed firearm. You could justify just being scared all the time, if you wanted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    242. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually the "world situation" is the problem, the (islamic) violence in Europe would not happen if their countries would not be war tourn, for what ever reason.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    243. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Your concealed-carry permit is not a right required under the constitution.

      No, it is not. But, according to the 9th Circuit Court, open carry is.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    244. Re:Seriously, America. by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      If it was gun free, how did he get a gun in there? Because, of course, guns don't just magically disintegrate when entering a "gun free zone."

      They should have used an Aperture Science Emancipation Grill.

    245. Re: Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seriously, free-for-all capitalism is just another name for "anarchy". It's been tried and results in warlords holding power.

      No, no it is not. Unfettered capitalism is oligarchy. Anarchy doesn't include masters, but one always crops up (or several, of course) which is why anarchy leads naturally to feudalism or fascism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    246. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      It's funny, these people are terrified of the toys with which we put holes in paper and the tools with which we hunt for food, yet they try to claim that we are scared and that's why we want guns. A tiny bit of critical thought and looking at the issue from a few different angles is all that is needed to realize that guns aren't the problem, but they do make the problem better; I'd rather someone hell-bent on killing a lot of people do so in a way I can defend against.

      Until we come together and solve that problem, guns are a benefit to all. Even those who don't own them.

      Once we solve that problem, there's no reason for anyone to want to take my guns, so they can continue being a benefit to me.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    247. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (lets face it, take the gun away, they still kill themselves)

      No, that's not necessarily true. Making suicide easier means that more people will attempt it, and making it faster means that more of them will succeed.

      we have other, enormous death problems we gloss over.

      That's whataboutism.

      With those things said, I still don't think the solution to gun suicide is banning guns. I think it's free mental health care, and a concerted effort to remove the stigma from mental health issues.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    248. Re:Seriously, America. by Zack · · Score: 1

      > I'm curious as to why you think mandatory military service is a terrible idea.

      Because I am not the property of the state and I will not be used as a slave to the state.

    249. Re:Seriously, America. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      What gets me is the idea that this is a "mass shooting". This deranged nonsense completely distorts any useful information from the media or any sort of sane public discourse.

      If the local drug dealer puts 3 different kids in the hospital on the same night does that become a "mass beating"?

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    250. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      My comments have nothing to do with the effectiveness of gun free zones in contexts like that. I was only attempting the dispel the retarded myth that people believe that gun free zones create some sort of magical wall that keeps all guns out. No one believes that.

      "Sure, that's scary. And if they do that, you can call the police and make their lives harder. But you know what's even more scary? Anyone could be carrying a concealed firearm. You could justify just being scared all the time, if you wanted."

      Sure but the odds are pretty remote aside from the most dangerous of places in America and if I live in fear of that I might as well live in fear of all of the other things that could kill me on a daily basis. Furthermore, if the weapon is concealed in a context like I experienced then they are clearly not trying to intimidate me with it which suggests a some what more stable personality. Also, in regards to calling the cops in a scenario like that, please visit your own comments on how far away cops are.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    251. Re: Seriously, America. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > but seriously I don't know of any developed country that incarcerates mentally ill people unless they post a threat to society.

      So what threat is there exactly from some guy that doesn't want to take his meds and ends up living on the street talking to trees?

      How exactly does your socialist utopia solve that little problem unless you actually do unjustly imprison the sick?

      You are making a number of bogus assumptions based on nothing but blind faith and wishful thinking.

      Some of you people really can't think shit through at all.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    252. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also, in regards to calling the cops in a scenario like that, please visit your own comments on how far away cops are.

      Your deliberate disingenuous impresses no one. There is a massive difference between your scenario (in which you were scared) and an active shooter scenario. In your scenario, there is plenty of time to call the cops. In an actual emergency, there is not. Your false equivalence is false.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    253. Re: Seriously, America. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Socialism is a state run economy

      That's the only part of your comment that is true or relevant.

      Socialism gives government the power to screw up everything. The noose can be a little bit tighter but it constricts the economy all the same. It leads to severe distortions and shortages.

      It really amazes me how some people can demonize one group of corrupt self-centered idiots while having blind faith that another set of them won't be just as harmful.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    254. Re: Seriously, America. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      >> You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education and move straight to a basic civics class. The 2nd amendment is already a limited right in our country.
      >
      > The Second Amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms. It's intended to keep the government from infringing on that right.

      The ENTIRE US Constitution is meant to be an enumeration of the powers of the federal government. Our rights are not enumerated by the Bill of Rights. They are not limited by what's written down in the Constitution. What the federal government is allowed to do is what's limited by the Constitution.

      This is a very basic, core principle that some people that whine about "civics" fail to grasp or acknowledge.

      Also, the whole thing still has to be viewed through a prism of over 200 years of case law. So just looking at that old document isn't enough.

      That is another important fundemental element of Anglo-American law that a lot of people like to gloss over.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    255. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Have nothing to do with the human tendency to freak out and start killing people.

      There's a book that has stories in it that are thousands of years old. It has one in it about some of the first humans to exist after the cognitive revolution. Two brothers to be exact. One of them killed the other because of his own thoughts.

      I know its hard, but think about that. This was not an accident. Nor was it the result of retribution or revenge. Insult was not given, nor was there a scale to balance. One dude simply had some fucked up shit going on in his head and he decided he was justified in killing the other dude.

      The lesson here is simple. Humans, as a species, have been killing people for no fucking reason for as long as we can collectively remember. Blame is often placed on many things, like guns, religion, and capitalism for instance. The lesson I have learned about this is simple as well: some people will use murder as a means to advance their own agendas.

      As uncaring as murderers are, they have counterparts who never commit murder but who are just as uncaring. They are the people like you who shift blame to something they have a problem with. How utterly human.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    256. Re:Seriously, America. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well now, who said I support conscription?
      I don't however view it as slavery.

      Well, it is. It's forced labor under threat of violence. That's slavery.

      Given that military missions are primarily humanitarian in nature I'm also entirely comfortable that a standing army is not a corporate tool, and does not exist to invade other countries for economic gain.

      That's because you're a corporate tool who is ignorant of history. Every major military conflict has economic causes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    257. Re:Seriously, America. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Let me tell you from personal experience there's nothing like being in an open carry state, having a minor disagreement with some one and having them draw attention to the fact that they are carrying a gun in that context.

      Perhaps I don't understand, but even outside of a gun-free zone, isn't that assault? And if it wasn't assault, then how intimidated were you, really?

      Seriously, I thought the entire intent assault-prohibition laws is to cover exactly the kind of problem that you're talking about. Perhaps we just don't enforce that law anymore?

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    258. Re:Seriously, America. by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Just...no. Let's do this by the numbers.

      The homicide rate (deaths per 100,000) has declined in the US from over 10 in 1980 to less than 5 as of 2017. Don't feel bad, Trump made the same erroneous claim during and after the election. Overall, violent crime is actually down in this country. Your assertion that there is an increased level of threat (you said, "massively more likely to commit homicide") is not supportable.

      You assert that proliferation of firearms is not a problem. I respectfully disagree. In case anybody reading this has any doubt, we do have a prolific supply of guns in the US -- nearly 250 million guns. That stat alone is stunning, but if we "dig deeper," as you put it, we find that only seven million US adults account for half of those guns. That stat is just terrifying. That is the real problem -- the 2nd Amendment is protecting access to guns for less than two percent of the nation.

      Owning a gun is one thing, and it is not necessarily a bad thing, and for the time being, it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. But there is a very real difference between owning a gun, and having access to one. The real problem in the US is that anybody who wants a gun one can get one, thanks to the 2nd Amendment. Remember, arguments supporting ownership are pointless if the person acquiring a gun wants only to shoot somebody.

    259. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      gun suicide doesn't even sound appealing. Some backstory here... in February I suffered a massive pulmonary embolism. It came as quite a shock because I am very active, work out every single day, and do not have alarming bloodwork levels. It turned out that a genetic condition related to an MTHFR gene mutation allowed for an unusually high level of homosistine. The reason I bring this up was this particular PE was a saddle clot blocking both branches of my pulmonary artery. When it happened I had bent over to pick up a sock, got very very VERY dizzy like I just got bitch-slapped by the flu all of a sudden. When trying to walk downstairs I lost consciousness and went face first into a metal storage container. In hindsight that fall may very well have saved my life as it slapped me awake enough to get downstairs and have my daughter call 911 for help (after a bit of trying to self diagnose and ruling out the obvious). I experienced zero pain. I was just unconscious and had low 0xygen saturation in my blood. It was if someone just turned off a lightswitch in my head.

      I would think the fastest most painless method of suicide would be opiate overdose. It happens so often unintended and it too is a respiratory failure. They just go to sleep, go hypoxic, and die. Given the insane proliferation of the most dangerous forms (synthetics like fentanil) I am surprised to still see suicide by gunshot happening at all, let alone to the magnitude. I figure anyone dead set on blowing their brains out (and its not always a guarantee you wont simply just be a vegetable the rest of your life) would be just as committed to using any other means as well. Hell someone could take a bunch of tylenol pm, mix it with alcohol, then go swimming.

    260. Re:Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      but most murders are just normal people who happen to have a gun nearby when a conflict escalates

      Most murders don't involve a gun at all, so I fail to see how that's even likely to be factual.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    261. Re:Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And if you completely subtract firearms-related homicide from that, it's still true. Guns aren't the problem; people wanting to kill each other is. Fix mental health in this country (start with your own if you think you're the type who might harm someone simply because you have a gun available -- that is NOT normal) and there is no reason to take guns from anyone who hasn't shown themselves incapable of handling them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    262. Re: Seriously, America. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Then read what he originally proposed as the basis for the 2nd Amendment; I quoted it, and you can follow the link. It's that the right to keep and bear arms is unambiguous and explicit

      Except it wasn't.

      It took a Supreme Court decision in the 1980s to turn the 2nd amendment into an (almost) inalienable personal right. For the 200 years before that, including the time when the founders were actually running the country, it was understood that the government had the right to pass gun control.....including the gun control actually passed by the founders.

      But the Constitution is a living document, and not a holy writ that is never open to reinterpretation. So now the 2nd Amendment is an (almost) inalienable personal right.

    263. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Agreed and well put. it is this line of reasoninig that has led me to believe that America is, more than anything else, a disguised fascist country. No, you crazy /. kids, relax, its not the kind of hysterical fascism you see when you see white people going about their daily lives. I'm talking about the historical, textbook, economic system kind of fascism where corporations are part of the government.

      Look objectively at the regulation system in the US for any large industry. It is more like a government/corporate created "walled garden" preventing competition and ensuring the livelihood and immortality of the companies than a method of protecting the people from corporations. Look at the system of subsidies provided to our energy producers, whether that energy goes into cars or into our bodies. Think objectively about how often Google met with the White House during Obama's tenure.

      There are lines of separation between giant corporations and government in the US. They are drawn up on paper to maintain the appearance of separation, but they only really exist in the deluded minds of the proletariat.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    264. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Sejong and Hwaseong would like to differ.

      And please, try to come up with a reasoned argument why some new firearm law that isn't already on the books (INCLUDING CONFISCATION OF LEGALLY OWNED FIREARMS) would have stopped this event. Especially in light of the massive problem of illegally owned firearms.

      Don't worry. I'm patient...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    265. Re:Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      It's a third world country with high levels of corruption in government, massive poverty, and massive wealth inequality.

      High levels of corruption in government: check.
      Massive poverty: check.
      Massive wealth inequality: check.

      Didn't realize the US was third-world, though. Have we really gotten that bad?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    266. Re:Seriously, America. by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

      Are you joking? US violent crime and homicide rates peaked in the late 1970s / early 1980s, and have since declined to near all-time lows.

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

    267. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      The hole in your argument is that you have no way to guarantee him not having a gun.

      Even if we confiscated every last one of the 330+ MILLION legal firearms in the country.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    268. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      The US gets compared to monolith cultures that have been socially and ethnically similar for longer than the US has existed. It also gets compared to countries indelicately called shitholes by the likes of Dick Durbin.

      The US gets compared to every country. No need to complain or call down the god of hypocrisy in condemnation of the comparisons. Contradiction and hypocrisy is the natural state of the political creature. You of all people should know this.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    269. Re:Seriously, America. by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is wrong with you people?

      [NRA Logic]
      The problem is that nobody in the audience and none of the gamers were armed. If the gamers or somebody in the audience had also possessed a weapon, they could have shot back at the attacker and thereby defended those innocent people. Probably no lives would have been lost. Everybody visiting such a venue should arm himself for self-protection and things like this wouldn't happen.
      [/NRA Logic]

    270. Re:Seriously, America. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to pop your pompous little bubble there, but the fact of the matter is that shit happens

      Sorry to pop your pompous little bubble there, but the fact of the matter is that shit happens. When you and your fellow well-armed citizens arrive at a gun battle, who you gonna shoot?

      The first guy you see with a gun? Well, unfortunately he was a good guy with a gun, returning fire. So was the three other people you shot....of course, the four of them were shooting at each other, each mistaking a good guy with a gun for the bad guy with a gun. All they saw was someone firing and someone going down.

      Then there's the little matter of accuracy. Given statistics from the military and police, it's unlikely the five of you will successfully hit what you are aiming at in roughly 1/3 to 2/3rds of your shots. Which means hitting bystanders and making you look like a bad guy with a gun and thus the target for your fellow well-armed individuals.

      The actual bad guy with a gun? He's the one over there saying "The shooter went that way!" while pointing towards you. And since you're armed and shooting, you definitely look like a bad guy with a gun.

      The fact is a crowd of armed people is utterly terrible at responding to a shooter. The chaos and confusion means the armed people in the crowd are going to fuck it up, and the only reason we don't have such mass casualty situations is most of us are not dumb enough to think everyone walking around with a gun is a good idea.

    271. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      I have insurance in case something bad happens. I'm not afraid it will happen, just smart enough to know it's better to be prepared than to be caught off guard.

      Try again?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    272. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      You're right. The 2nd Amendment, against the law, is already infringed, as it should not be.

      And no, socialism isn't drinking water or any of that.

      Social programs != Socialism.

      If you'd actually taken that civics course, instead of Social Studies, you'd ACTUALLY understand this.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    273. Re:Seriously, America. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I would also argue that every additional bullet coming from every direction increases the odds of some innocent bystander getting hit.

      I take it then you are opposed to police ever using lethal force if there are innocent bystanders in the area... as your average CPL holder is better trained and practiced than your average cop.

      The difference is that one has qualified immunity and is able to take more risky shots knowing they are less likely to be held to account... while the CPL holder knows they have to do everything perfectly, and even then they can be on the receiving end of a prosecutor who decided to make an example of them.

    274. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Ah, another term whose over-use/misuse has robbed it of any actual or rhetorical impact.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    275. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      The average Venezuelan is STARVING right now.

      And there was just a recent mass shooting in Australia.

      So that sorta screws your argument.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    276. Re:Seriously, America. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      In fact if you rule out suicide (lets face it, take the gun away, they still kill themselves)

      No, actually they don't.

      The vast majority of non-gun suicides are not successful, and result in the person surviving the attempt and getting treatment, resulting in them not committing suicide later.

      That happens because non-gun suicides take longer, allowing the person to change their mind. And most do change their mind when the reality of their death sets in.

      So no, you can't blithely assume all gun suicides would still happen in a world where guns magically disappeared. Most likely they'd be like the non-gun suicides where a large portion did not end up killing themselves.

    277. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. Actually it cannot.

      Because the 2nd Amendment was never about granting rights of arms to a military.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    278. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, modern people are incredibly self centered these days and cannot imagine that word usage, grammar, syntax definitions of words, and the intelligence of the intended audience could have changed in 200 years.

      Unfortunately, modern people believe that the one receiving speech gets to determine the meaning of the speech, regardless of any and all explicitly formal and supported definitions or any exact meaning contained in those words.

      Unfortunately, modern people are completely immune to commentaries given by the people who wrote the constitution where they define both implicitly and explicitly the words used, their meaning at the time, the circumstances for that choice of words, the effects these words were intended to have on the population, and the exact meaning of the whole sentence.

      Unfortunately, people are intentionally stupid.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    279. Re:Seriously, America. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      How is it in the 70s anybody could buy every form of weapon, including fully automatic, and the homicide rate is much higher now than its ever been

      The homicide rate in the US peaked in 1980. The current homicide rate is about the same as 1950.

      https://www.infoplease.com/us/...

      So, the homicide rate was about double the current homicide rate when that M16 was available "side by side".

    280. Re:Seriously, America. by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      The number of us adults owning guns cannot be an accurate statistic, there is no way to really know this number. At best that is the number of law abiding citizens. The only possible way they could even guess at that would be statistics based on calls to NICS. There were 1.1 million law enforcement sworn officers in 2008, that number had to have grown since then. That doesn’t count the other department employees without the power of arrest who still qualify for concealed carry. These people are pre-qualified in the same manner that CCDW persons are pre-qualified. In other words a phone call to NICS for a background check is not required. The minute you are no longer eligible for concealed carry, everything is revoked, and they come collect your permit on the spot.

      Its way more than 2%. Where I live, less than 25% of the population _don't_ own at least 1 firearm. And those are the ones willing to admit to it. There are some type that wont answer either way because they feel its none of anyone else's business. They'll find out when/if they find themselves on the wrong side of it. We have some of the highest ownership, most tolerant gun laws, and an extremely homicide rate by firearms. Most of our crime is from junkies trying to get money for their next score. Despite sometimes turning into a case where said junky enters the home while still occupied, a case where lethal force is actually justified, this does not happen. it really is true that an armed society is a polite society. Escalations are much less frequent because there is that possibility that things could go really bad really quick. Deterrence.

      Honestly, I find myself much more dangerous in a hand-to-hand situation than a potentially armed one. In an armed situation I am very clear, clinical. I’ve trained this way, and I encourage everyone to also work at it. In hand-to-hand, its no less lethal. If things have gotten so far out of tilt that its resulted in pure aggression, I have no filter. Years of military training coupled with over a decade of martial arts training kick in. In hand-to-hand things can get really dangerous really fast. The winner of the conflict is the one who ends the fight as fast as possible. The longer the conflict takes, the worse your odds are surviving and continuing to be able to provide for your family. Without a filter I am immediately going to vital and debilitating damage points. People think that encounters like that have a higher chance of both parties surviving. They obviously never considered the possibility of simply crushing someone’s windpipe, stress fracturing their cervical vertebrae, or biting out their trachea. That's the last place I want to be. It's nothing like what you see on TV.

    281. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Exactly! This also means that if the meaning of the words change in common usage the changed definitions must be discarded and the original meaning of the words must be used.

      If this were not the case and you asked someone to "visit" you they could beat the living shit out of you and you would have no defense in court as you specifically asked for them to beat you.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    282. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Howsabout "no".

      Even in the time of the Founding Fathers, they were aware of the march of technology.

      Things like muzzle-loaders were the most common weapons, as they were some of the easiest and cheapest to mass produce.

      But repeating rifles and the like pre-existed the US as a sovereign state by over a century.

      So why weren't they more common?
      Why doesn't everyone drive a Lamborghini today?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    283. Re:Seriously, America. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      FYI, this isn't actually true. Gun ownership in the U.S. is correlated with an increase in mortality. That means if you own a gun, you're more likely to die.

      Dying in an airplane crash is also correlated with having a pilots license... as is dying in a car crash correlated with owning a car... however neither change the fact that on a mile per mile basis, flying is safer than driving. Lazy people simply throw out stats they don't understand to justify their view, intelligent people drill into the data to understand it's meaning.

      Given that ~2/3rds gun deaths are suicide, that correlation simply means that if one opts to kill themselves and they own a gun... they are going to be more successful, as most don't use their car to do the job.

      It's odd, isn't it... we have hundreds of millions of firearms and trillions of rounds of ammunition, and when you remove places like Chicago and Baltimore from the stats, the nations overall rate of gun violence (suicide not being included) plummets dramatically.

      But the idea that they're great for self defense is a myth.

      The CDC disagrees, and did so under Obama even: http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/...

      Look up stats on the number of guns stolen in home invasions annually, and compare that to defensive gun usage.

      https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu... says an estimated 1.4 million guns stolen during a 6 year period or ~233k per year, while https://www.nap.edu/read/18319... mentions:

      Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million

      It's been a few years since I had a math class, however I believe 500k is more than 233k.

    284. Re: Seriously, America. by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      The link I posted in the other reply shows clearly that even at the time there was a mess about this and the version ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson did not have this misplaced comma

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    285. Re:Seriously, America. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Sorry to pop your pompous little bubble there, but the fact of the matter is that shit happens, and when it does, it's better to be prepared than unprepared. Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people. It also means that you disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can go right ahead and arm themselves (Anders Brevik, for example).

      I sincerely hope that if your life is ever in danger, that there is someone equipped and prepared to defend you, but kindly stop pretending that abject helplessness is a virtue.

      -jcr

      This is the type of mentality that pisses me of (and I'm a gun owner and collector with a CC license.)

      The one reason I carry is because there's a lot of fucked up people in this country, many of whom are 2nd amendment circle jerkers who prep for when Obama declares martial laws and the black choppers come knocking.

      But when I travel to, say, Japan, shit man, it's hard to describe how refreshing it is to live in a civilized country where I don't have the primal feeling that I need to carry a piece.

      Shit man, it's awesome, try it out sometimes. What you call "abject helplessness" is indeed a virtue when we are willing to build a society that is civilized and not taken over by gun-ho assholes.

      Yes, there's always a what-if, what if an Anders Brevik comes along, or a dude with a knife, or a group like the Aum Shinrikyo decides to carry out a chemical attack on a subway.

      Well guess what? Shit happens. Life is a fucking lottery. I'd still trade living in "abject helplessness" among civilized people than having to carry (as I do today) because I'm surrounded by savages prepping themselves for that what-if scenario.

      This shit is comically psychotic.

    286. Re: Seriously, America. by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Um, what does religion have to do with these shootings? Or is that just a patented answer you give?

    287. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      That's because your understanding of war doctrine is stuck in the 1700's.

      In the 21st Century, nobody stands across a field from their enemy and trades volleys anymore.

      Asymmetric (guerilla) warfare is the tactical doctrine du jour.

      And trying to fight a guerilla war IN YOUR OWN HOME COUNTRY is damn near impossible.

      Because an insurgent could, quite literally, be ANYONE.

      It's also a security nightmare for those in power.

      Most security details have problems staving off a single, determined shooter.

      Think about the problems of trying to defend a high value target against hundreds, or possibly THOUSANDS of independently motivated shooters.

      And sure, the US military consists of about 2 million people, all told.

      NRA membership is at 6 million.

      And there are more than 330 MILLION *legal* firearms in this country.

      And that's JUST using the mistaken assumption that the law enforcement and military personnel would be on the government's side in such a situation.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    288. Re: Seriously, America. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Are you absolutely insane?

      I'm not being insulting, I'm serious.

      You just said:
      An armed people was to prevent a standing army from becoming a tyrannical force against the people.

      Now that we have a powerful standing army (which has the ability to become a tyrannical force against the people) we should make sure the people have no weapons and no right to defend themselves.

      I can't even begin to decipher how you tortured your mind into this conclusion. You should be embarrassed.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    289. Re: Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "When you exclude the black population ... There will always be ... strictly black on black inner city violence." That pretty well sums up the fucking problem. The black population isn't a separate, excludable population. Treating the situation as such, though, is a great recipe for not addressing the issue. If there's greater violence in your community, what do you do? More funding for police. More training for police if they're part of the problem. More community involvement. Or do you just say, "well, shit happens, I guess it's okay to live in a shithole [country]."?

      What? You're not "part" of the "community" because "it's a different neighborhood"? Yes, that's just your bullshit excusing why you fail to act upon a problem that's happening where you live. If it's the neighborhood beside you, you rally to support them as above. If it's in the same city but on the other side, the same. If it's a city a ways away in the same state, the same. Even if it's not in the same state, the same thing applies.

      American on American violence is a problem, wherever it is. I know a lot of Americans are assholes who treat non-Americans as subhumans and couldn't place a random country on the map if their life depended on it, but to act like some Americans are separate and it's sufficient to play statistical games with them to make "the rest" look good? Fuck you. That's pretty much the epitome of being unAmerican.

    290. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. The "Define this how I want it defined, and ignore all the failures from faithful implementations in the past."

      Fuck you.

      You do NOT have a right to the fruits of another individual's labor.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    291. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Can you name one such "real capitalism" that was "worse than Maoist China"?

      No. Of course they can't.

      Like every other good little socialist sheeple, this kind of crap just falls out of their mouth, and then they get OFFENDED when people ask for actual data to back them up.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    292. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      There's also a sick "copycat" culture in the US as well as a fixation on the concept of fame...

      Basically, it boils down to a nationwide "talent search" for "The Next Jackass" with a bunch of maladjusted, narcissistic fuckboys doing stupid, antisocial shit, and the guy behind him going "HOLD MUH BEER!".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    293. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I agree with you to a certain extend but those of European decent tend to commit alcohol fueled crimes disproportionately to other groups. This is true whatever area of the globe they are located. Those of Sub Saharan African decent tend to commit homicide at higher numbers. There are assholes in any broad racial group but pretending that differences do not exist between groups is nonsense. Ignoring those differences and then trying to lay those crimes at the feet of some third variable isn't a responsible way to approach the problem.

    294. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      And, if it was true (which it isn't) explain why most of the places in the country with the highest homicide rates have the strictest gun laws...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    295. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Committing suicide isn't illegal.
      Trying to commit suicide and FAILING is illegal.

      I hate to be a callous dick about it.
      (Well, not really.)
      I don't want the sort of invasive control over someone's life that would be necessitated to prevent actual suicides.
      Sure, it might decrease firearm suicides somewhat.
      But it will simply drive a portion of that population to other forms of suicide.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    296. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define a "mass shooting".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    297. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      You see a good guy with a gun can only reliably stop a bad guy with a gun if the good guy has greater range.

      Incorrect and a failure to grasp the dynamics of a combat situation.

      Declaring range alone is the only metric of "reliability", is like trying to compare muzzle velocities, and declaring the higher muzzel velocity the "winner". Even if you're talking about a hundreth or thousandth of a second. Which is fully enough time for two people to "simultaneously" shoot one another.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    298. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Usually in a shooting situation, it's already clear who the perp is BEFORE anyone else pulls out a gun to drill them.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    299. Re: Seriously, America. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      get government out of the way (ie, "government you can drown in a bathtub") in terms of property rights, contracts, regulations, and even rule of law.

      Hogwash. Even the Libertarian Party recognizes that enforcing contracts and property rights are legitimate roles of government.

      You are claiming that "capitalist are anarchists" which is as stupid and inane as saying "progressives are Stalinists" or "conservatives are Nazis".

      those 10 countries scored so low on those categories makes them Randian capitalist paradise.

      I am no fan of Ayn Rand, but you are completely misrepresenting her views. I doubt if you have ever read even a summary of anything she has written.

    300. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      actual data Note the shooting deaths in EU vs US.

    301. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid this is not what the data indicates. London homicide rate is on par with NY even though New York tends toward guns as the preferred weapon.

    302. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      "An armed society is a safe society."

      No. An armed society is an armed society.

      There's no such thing as "safe". PERIOD.
      Safety is an illusion. A lie we tell to ourselves because we want to avoid facing how much reality actually sucks.

      Interacting with other people is always going to contain a modicum of danger.
      As a society we know this and on some level (mostly unconsciously) we agree to it.
      We then tell ourselves that the ones we're dealing with at the moment are "much less dangerous", and apply the term "safe" to them.
      Which is reinforced if they don't attempt to kill us.

      I know, I know. It's a dark, atavistic, antisocial and generally depressing way of looking at human social interaction.
      But, with only momentary reprieves from sterling specimens of mankind, it's probably the smartest, most enlightened way to get through your life without some stupid sonofabitch ending it prematurely...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    303. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1

      You're just being petulant. That is opinion/editorialization and not data on Snopes' part. With a smaller population Norway naturally will have fewer opportunities for violence but Norway again is one of 10 countries with a higher rate than the US. Even if inclined to give you Norway, Lynwood is still correct.

    304. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      In the US, something is declared a "mass shooting" at 3-4 people. Dead or wounded.

      Pretty sure someone popping off a firearm in commission of a crime is ALWAYS going to be classed a mass shooter.

      Here in Chicago, pretty much EVERY thug-on-thug shooting on the South Side is a mass shooting.
      And I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that most (if not all) of them are committed with firearms that were NOT legally acquired.

      As a law abiding citizen and firearm owner, why should I allow my rights to be abridged because of some criminal shitbag who wasn't even following the law in the first place?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    305. Re: Seriously, America. by butchersong · · Score: 1
      Yeah that number looked like it was off by a factor 10 to me. Let's take a look at this quote you included though:

      The US tops the list of countries with the most guns, owning about half the world's guns while making up only 5% of the world population.

      . If homicide rates in the US are par with other countries and the US has an uncountable number of guns compared to other countries, is the assertion that the US is such a paradise that sans guns we would have almost no homicide or is the assertion that sans guns we might have 5% less homicide? I'm not sure how you articulate a good argument for gun control if you accept the quote above.

    306. Re: Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Internet time. Anything that happened more than a day ago is pre-history....

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    307. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      So what?
      Ever heard of a New York Reload?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    308. Re: Seriously, America. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I never said whether the 2nd should be repealed or not, just pointed out that in the 18th century, experience had showed that standing armies can lead to tyranny and at the time, a militia was considered a good idea. The Constitution does make funding an army long term harder then a navy and the 2nd itself mentions the importance of a militia.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    309. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      The problem is, by the time someone notices a gun in a GFZ, calls the cops, and the cops arrive, you're talking minutes AT BEST.

      In that time, some freak can open up and spray a crowd down.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    310. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      But but but! He called 1-800-INSTACOP

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    311. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      CITATION REQUIRED

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    312. Re: Seriously, America. by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      That's a slightly more reasonable argument, but regardless of semantics, I get the impression you seem to feel like you cannot protect yourself adequately without the use of a firearm. You have a level of concern for your safety which requires you to have "insurance" that you can use to protect yourself from bad people.
      You aren't scared, or afraid, or living in fear; you are a brave cautious person protecting their family from the bad people.

      I wonder what the average gun-owning person's savings totals. If insurance against bad things happening is a legitimately important factor, a financial emergency is a much more likely recurring event to happen to an individual.

    313. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      No. Owning a firearm has conditions or justifications, it just is. AND, as a side-benefit, an armed society is best able to resist a tyranny.

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.

      No "because", no "as a result". Two distinct statements. One saying what the right is - to keep and bear arms. And another stating just one benefit. But there is ZERO qualifier on "why" a person has the right to keep and bear arms. None. That is a fabrication.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    314. Re: Seriously, America. by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      From an amicus brief from some linguists that agrees with the down-modded post:

      The term "bear arms" is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.

      As a sig I've seen around here notes, there is no -1 disagree moderation option.

    315. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Here's something concrete: in the USA, it's too easy to procure a gun.

      Tell that to people in "may issue" counties.

      Gun free zones, civilian guns, even police guns are irrelevant in the case someone with enough resolve decides to shoot a bunch of people, as long as guns are easily available for purchase by pretty much anyone.

      You mean "criminals" and "crazy people"? You know, people who're already PROHIBTED BY LAW from owning firearms?
      Yet, somehow, they mysteriously do?

      You DO understand that, even if there was universal confiscation of legally acquired firearms, that criminals would still be able to acquire guns right?

      Guns, contrary to popular belief, are not terribly difficult to build (look up "zip gun"). They're relatively simple, uncomplicated mechanisms. And pretty much anyone with access to machine shop tools can fabricate a firearm and ammunition.

      And, with the advent of 3D printing, creation of firearms is easier than ever. Sure, a plastic gun isn't very durable. But the evidence is even more easily destroyed now, and multiples can be printed, so that firepower can be kept up through "New York Reloads".

      You're hallucinating if you think getting rid of legally acquired firearms will get rid of violence.
      Hell, getting rid of legally acquired firearms won't even get rid of GUN violence.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    316. Re: Seriously, America. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, it was clear - it was people who didn't like what it said that confused and muddied it. The Supreme Court has been quite clear - the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, it does not need justification. It's only a matter of time before concealed carry is available everywhere, and most likely unlicensed (as it is now in many States). I've posted the link and the quote of James Madison in the first, wordier iteration of the 2nd amendment - it is an inalienable, individual right.

      Yes, the Constitution is a living document - and it contains the means by which it can be altered. Changing it without following the described process is effectively tyranny.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    317. Re: Seriously, America. by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      fun fact archive.org has a torrent for The Liberator.

      Guns are easy to make with the proper tools

    318. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      you seem to feel like you cannot protect yourself adequately without the use of a firearm

      Funny, I seem to get the impression that I'd have to keep it loaded and ready to go, rather than locked up when I'm not at the range, in order for it to be an effective self defense tool.

      I get the impression you seem to feel like your assumptions are solid truth. Sorry to burst your bubble.

      If I carried, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on; but you should probably take a seat now.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    319. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The NRA are a bunch of cucks. This wasn't always the case, and I'm only a member today by way of having become a lifetime member before they became their current shitshow.

      Please, don't equate their actions to reflect the majority of the gun community. They havne't been that for nearly a decade.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    320. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      It's not a tiny fraction. There are tens of thousands of shops and facilities all across the country with the wherewithal to fabricate firearms.

      There are no less than FIVE maker-spaces in Chicago-proper. And ALL of them have the facilities to produce metal firearms, and several of them have the ability to produce 3D printed firearms.

      And there's over a dozen more out in the suburbs.

      And that's not even taking into account actual metal fabrication businesses.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    321. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Question: Who are YOU to declare a right "obsolete"?

      Simply because YOU see no value in it doesn't mean it has no value.

      If you want to give up your own right to guns, feel free. I'm not gonna stop you.

      But I deeply resent attempts to force or shame me into giving up mine.
      I own firearms. So what? I don't kill people with them. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use them to kill people either.
      I own a car. So what? I don't kill people with it. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use it to kill people either.

      And before you start telling me that automobiles aren't designed to kill people, I will say "so what"? They still kill more people than firearms every year. Intent of a device doesn't negate reality.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    322. Re: Seriously, America. by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      And, of course, the place where they competition was held was a "gun free zone". As is standard with mass shootings (all but 1?). So, guns were already illegal where the shooting happened.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    323. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Actually the "world situation" is the problem, the (islamic) violence in Europe would not happen if their countries would not be war tourn, for what ever reason.

      False. Most of the "refugees" mass migrating into Europe are economic migrants, taking advantage of foolish immigration policies and a generous welfare state.

    324. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yup, another point people seem to miss. Or, if they get that, they shoot back (pun intended) "it didn't matter that they were illegal there, since they're so easy to get a hold of anyway" to which I say "well, duh, that's why making them illegal here won't work."

      They're too easy to get illegally already! You think that will change if they become entirely illegal? Nope. People who don't want the liability will sell or give them to someone who doesn't mind. And who doesn't mind the liability of an illegal firearm? Criminals top that list.

      The guns aren't going to disappear just because they're made illegal, it will just become easier for criminals to get their hands on them as law abiding citizens rush to get rid of them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    325. Re: Seriously, America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I seem to get the impression that I'd have to keep it loaded and ready to go, rather than locked up when I'm not at the range, in order for it to be an effective self defense tool

      I"m not sure if you're asking a question here or what...but yes, most people that I've ever known that keeps a weapon for self defense (whether hidden around the home, or carry concealed) does in fact carry them loaded with one in the chamber, I mean, that's just common sense.

      An unloaded, locked away gun is pretty much as useless as not having a gun at all if an emergency hits and you find you need one.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    326. Re: Seriously, America. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court has been quite clear - the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right, it does not need justification

      Only after the Heller case. Before Heller, that was not the case.

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

      The trend towards it being a personal right started in the 1980s, but until Heller it had not been concretely decided. That's why Heller is a precedent instead of "more of the same".

    327. Re:Seriously, America. by nwaack · · Score: 1

      but kindly stop pretending that abject helplessness is a virtue

      Good luck with that. That is THE mantra of the liberal and the very reason they exist in the first place.

    328. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I was pointing out that my guns aren't for defense, in response to the allegation that I bought them out of fear because I couldn't defend myself without them. Read what I was responding to and get some context, maybe?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    329. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Ugh... sorry for the harsh tone of that reply, I just saw that the threading is screwed up here. Try clicking "Parent" on my post to see what I was replying to, or looking at what I quoted and seeing that it wasn't something you had said. I'll assume you thought I was replying to you due to Slashdot's screwed up threading.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    330. Re: Seriously, America. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My bad, brain fart.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    331. Re: Seriously, America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Do you *really* need ARs with extended mags?

      Since when in the US, have our rights been allocated or limited by what one needs?

      I mean, do I "need" to be able to speak freely without government punishment, even if what I voice isn't the current popular train of thought?

      (I mean, even racist speech is protected speech in the US, do you wish to limit what speech can be uttered if you don't agree with it, and feel that no one NEEDS to utter it ever again?)

      Do I need to be secure in my property and papers from all sorts of searches and seizures?

      I'm not sure I hear the "need" test being applied to our other constitutional amendments...why the 2nd?

      My rights are not based on what I "need", they never have been and never should be.

      Freedom is about what you WANT to do with your life and your possessions, not what you "NEED" them for....who is to decide what I "need"? You?

      I decide what I need.....

      And funny....while no one is trying to actively chip away and erode the rights described in the other amendments, those amendments don't have the specific words the 2nd one does "shall not be infringed"......

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    332. Re: Seriously, America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Yep...I wasn't sure where your reply was coming from....I think we're both basically on the same side of things...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    333. Re:Seriously, America. by youngone · · Score: 1

      Other have made the point, but I'll chime in too.
      If Brazil is what you aspire to, then I'm sorry.

    334. Re: Seriously, America. by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      I think you have that backwards; people who want to steal my money to redistribute it to others who did not earn it are the douchebags.

    335. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure we are, as well; I was replying to someone who was arguing with you on the matter.

      Happens all the time. Damnit Slashdot.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    336. Re:Seriously, America. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      High levels of corruption in government: check.
      Massive poverty: check.
      Massive wealth inequality: check.

      Didn't realize the US was third-world, though. Have we really gotten that bad?

      We do have corruption. Is it high? I'll need a citation. Do we seem to be jailing corrupt politicians? Given the number of republicans being indicted lately, yes. And it does seem odd to me that more republicans are being indicted under a republican congress and executive controlled branches.

      Massive poverty? We don't have massive poverty. You'll need to check countries like Brazil, Mexico, India, or any of the many other 3rd world countries to see what massive poverty looks like. Here's a hint, it's not a bunch of people running around in brand name clothes with cellphones eating McDs because they can't afford organic groceries.

      We have wealth inequality, it's true. It's not massive like it is in those other countries listed above, because you have to truly have massive poverty to have the type of wealth inequality that leads to a 3rd world country.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    337. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've seen willfully delusional people before but you take the cake sir.

      I guess all those people clamoring to get into our country are doing so because of the weather, right?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    338. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "deliberate disingenuous"? No, I completely agree that those scenarios are in fact very different. That doesnt change the fact that by the time the cops arrived the confrontation would have been over and there really wouldnt have been anything to charge him with. Nudging your holster hip someone's way and giving them a wink isn't exactly illegal.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    339. Re: Seriously, America. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Public money to pay for infrastructure isn't socialism. Sorry.

    340. Re: Seriously, America. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      That isn't socialism. That's people making voluntary choices to associate with others. They are operating in a capitalist system. In socialism, the state owns the means of production and the poor peasant has no alternative but to work for, sell to, and receive alms from the state.

    341. Re: Seriously, America. by renegadesx · · Score: 1

      Australia is incredibly capitalist, it just has gun laws against automatic weapons. As for Venezuela, it's transforming into a totalitarian state and the people have no means to defend themselves against a murderous tyrant in Maduro, this is exactly why Americans don't want to give up their guns. This is exactly why the second amendment was written.

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    342. Re:Seriously, America. by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      1 in the last 6 months. A few in the last 10 years.

      But we didn't have any before we had gun control.

    343. Re: Seriously, America. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Why does this bullshit keep coming up. Socialism is simply the people owning the means of production, contrary to the propaganda that has been pushed on people. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

      If you believe in the free market, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and if you believe in minimal government, there is the original libertarian-ism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    344. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Question: Who are YOU to declare a right "obsolete"?

      Some dude from a foreign country who might see things differently. I don't declare it in any way, I just happen to think it's obsolete.

      Simply because YOU see no value in it doesn't mean it has no value.

      That's valid for everything in this world. Even dog shit has value for someone.

      If you want to give up your own right to guns, feel free. I'm not gonna stop you.

      Guess what, I never had any. Ever. In my whole life. And I live happily without it, because the most I can feel threatened with in my third world country's capital is being mugged by someone stronger than me. Which never happened, despite the fact I am a middle aged thin metalhead walking through the city every night at 1-2 AM.

      But I deeply resent attempts to force or shame me into giving up mine.
      I own firearms. So what? I don't kill people with them. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use them to kill people either.
      I own a car. So what? I don't kill people with it. I don't allow criminals and crazies to use it to kill people either.

      And before you start telling me that automobiles aren't designed to kill people, I will say "so what"? They still kill more people than firearms every year. Intent of a device doesn't negate reality.

      Whataboutism at its finest. "what about cars, what about knives, what about big fists and rat poison" - we aren't talking about either of those, now, are we?
      it wasn't about you and your guns. Ever. See, that's why you and people like you don't comprehend. But at the same time I know I can't have a logical discussion with your kind, so whatever, man.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    345. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You mean "criminals" and "crazy people"? You know, people who're already PROHIBTED BY LAW from owning firearms?
      Yet, somehow, they mysteriously do?

      But of course they do, there are vast areas in the USA where it's easier to buy a gun than a Kinder egg (both being banned of course).
      They do get their paws on guns because the US of A is the biggest gun warehouse in the world.

      You DO understand that, even if there was universal confiscation of legally acquired firearms, that criminals would still be able to acquire guns right?

      Only in the USA and similarly-rife-with-guns-countries.
      Try acquiring any kind of real gun in most of Europe, see how difficult THAT is.

      You're hallucinating if you think getting rid of legally acquired firearms will get rid of violence.
      Hell, getting rid of legally acquired firearms won't even get rid of GUN violence.

      In case of the USA you're totally right. The proposal, as it would be, would come about 120 years too late. Now you're screwed.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    346. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Hey, I wasn't the one alleging things. tell that to the GP.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    347. Re:Seriously, America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hell, under the Soviets, Russian private citizens weren'even permitted to own firearms. And that didn't stop the revolution that swept the USSR into the dustbin of history, where it deserved to be all along.

      And the Poles of the Warsaw Uprising did have guns, and they got squashed.

    348. Re: Seriously, America. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I think the bug that seems to happen when a thread gets too long, and attributes replies from one post to a parent or higher post has occurred. I haven't been drunk enough or high enough in years to reply what I did to what you said, And I'm pretty high and almost drunk right now...

    349. Re: Seriously, America. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Erm... property rights, enforcement of contracts, law, and fair regulation is exclusive to capitalism?

      Yes.

      In general, lacking a rule of law or enforcement of contracts makes doing anything really hard...

      Indeed. That is the point. When you abandon capitalism, things fall apart. When you bring it back, things improve. Venezuela is on the downswing, China is heading up.

    350. Re:Seriously, America. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Do try to keep up.

      Anyone with a 3D printer can download and print out a gun right now.

      Right. Now.

      Doesn't matter who legislates against it, it's already happened and, like the Anarchist's Cookbook, can't be put back in the box.

      Crims will have guns. That's a given. All you're proposing is giving them a much, much higher advantage over regular folk.

      Also, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm pro-gun. I'm not, even a little bit. I hate the bloody things and think society would be much better off without them at all. But I'm also not stupid enough to think for a minute that legislating against them is going to make them magically go away.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    351. Re: Seriously, America. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between terrorism (generally mass murder driven by Judeo-Christian and Muslim ideology based on revenge and misplaced justice) and school schootings (mass murder driven by purely revenge and misplaced sense of justice)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    352. Re: Seriously, America. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Child molestation and rape is the same thing you moron and you can look up the statistics yourself. It's not a racial thing at all, it's reality, it's also WHY the stats are so skewed, child molestation is again, 13.1 African-American children per 1,000 vs 8 White/Latino children per 1,000. That's nearly double and we also know that communities that willfully keep distant or poor relations with police and governments under-report these issues much more.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    353. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      You're the one stating that "statistics" contradict them.

      Bring forth said "statistics".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    354. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      How many kinder eggs require a background check?

      And why would I try to acquire a firearm in Europe? I don't live there. I don't care about it beyond the EU's self-destructive policies.
      I'm never going there, because I no longer view going there as a smart decision. Even for just general tourism.

      "120 years too late"

      Try 227. The Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment have been ratified since 1791.

      Also, if you think illegal firearms are hard to get in Europe, you're insane.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    355. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      "Whataboutism"

      And right there it shows that you completely missed the point of the argument.

      Fine. I don't give a shit.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    356. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Good, since someone is actually reading this, I'll provide the backing for my numbers.

      Here are the least populous 14 states, all with a population under 2 million each.
      Nebraska 1,920,076
      West Virginia 1,815,857
      Idaho 1,716,943
      Hawaii 1,427,538
      New Hampshire 1,342,795
      Maine 1,335,907
      Rhode Island 1,059,639
      Montana 1,050,493
      Delaware 961,939
      South Dakota 869,666
      North Dakota 755,393
      Alaska 739,795
      Vermont 623,657
      Wyoming 579,315

      16.2 million people in all 14 states combined, and they have the power to block any constitutional amendment (on any topic, not just gun control).

      Conversely, an amendment could be forced through by ignoring the will of the most populous 13 states. It's unlikely to happen, but possible nonetheless.
      California 39,536,653
      Texas 28,304,596
      Florida 20,984,400
      New York 19,849,399
      Pennsylvania 12,805,537
      Illinois 12,802,023
      Ohio 11,658,609
      Georgia 10,429,379
      North Carolina 10,273,419
      Michigan 9,962,311
      New Jersey 9,005,644
      Virginia 8,470,020
      Washington 7,405,743

      These 13 states have a total population of 201.5 million. The remaining 37 states have a population of 123.5 million. That means 38% of the population can overrule the will of the other 62%, because that's how the Constitution is written. This is a feature, not a bug. It was written that way on purpose, or rural and small states would not have ratified the Constitution. Unfortunately, we're still stuck with the compromises (including some of those made to protect slavery) to this day.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    357. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, let's let Brazil run the experiment, since they seem eager to do so. If they loosen the restrictions on gun ownership and the murder rate goes up and stays there after a decade, well then you have your strong evidence. Likewise, if their murder rate goes down and stays there, you have your strong evidence. Chances are it's going to be a mixed bag, but even then, there should be enough data to prove something.

      I'm not saying this to be a hard bastard. We have no control over what Brazil wants to do internally (or we shouldn't have, anyhow -- who knows what the fuck the CIA is doing). All we can do is learn from their successes and failures alike.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    358. Re:Seriously, America. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      surrounded by 2nd Amendment activists who were all responsible gun owners.

      [Citation needed]

      Did you forget that Chris Kyle wasn't the only person killed there? His friend Chad Littlefield was shot 7 times.

      I question whether 2A activists, and NRA members, are responsible gun owners. It seems that gun injuries go down when the NRA convention is on:

      Interesting your responding with a unsubstantiated non-sequitur. Had you actually read the study (rather than just the headlines), it's pretty weak, not even suggesting A leads to B, only comparing nearest weekends and no other parts of the year. It doesn't even reliably establish correlation.

      If the most gung-ho 2A folks can't operate them safely, how do you expect J. Q. Public.

      Except you've not established that. Yet stronger research indicates legal gun holders commit murders at about the same rate as people in Japan.

      It is uncanny in the US, those places where it is easiest to legally acquire/carry a firearm, tend to have low murder rates, while those places where it is harder, have rather high murder rates. If only everyone would adopt Chicago gun laws... then it wouldn't be a war-zone every weekend... right?

      I have nothing against gun themselves, but there needs to be (a) some kind of basic competence check, (b) a criminal background check.

      And states can implement such things, such things... however why do you think that would stop... anything? It is remarkable how many killers & mass shooters have not only passed background checks prior to purchase, and could demonstrate a basic level of competency... and yet they still go on to do evil. It's as if we have what you are looking for... and it doesn't do what you want.

    359. Re:Seriously, America. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Being armed... does significantly increase the odds.

      [Citation needed]

      It's odd isn't it... we do not simply arm our police officers with karate, or swords... but with firearms. Similarly, we do the same thing with the military, secret service, even security guards. It's as if... there is a recognition that if bad things happen... having the ability to react with lethal force which can be used over a range of space... is better than having a very short range weapon, or up close combat skills.

      Odd, isn't that?

    360. Re:Seriously, America. by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      >Banning sudafed sure as fuck didnt stop the use of meth

      Public execution of drug dealers in 3 days after being caught on the street will.

      You see, American imbeciles, you are not doing things right, aaaaaaalways quoting Prohibition as a failure.

      The only failure is your stupid liberal system that aaaaalways covers for criminals because "human rights".

      That's the problem

      Again: go Duterte all the way, and there will be no opioid epidemic, no people demanding "marijuana for glaucoma" and idiocy like that.

      How about applying common sense instead of your "liberal principles" for a change?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    361. Re: Seriously, America. by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      I think part of the reason people like bringing up Venezuela and a few others like it is due to some infographic that used to get circulated a lot. It was something showing that the USA had the highest number of gun deaths or whatever.... but didn't show any of those other countries, and the conclusion on it was "USA has the highest number of gun deaths in the whole world," or whatever. So they get mad about that and point fingers at something worse to say: "See! We're not #1 in gun deaths!"

    362. Re: Seriously, America. by NickGnome · · Score: 1

      The gamer videos testify he was a "serious professional". Operating in a "gun-free zone". That always prevents mayhem....not.

    363. Re: Seriously, America. by NickGnome · · Score: 1

      Right. Not enough guns in the hands of trained citizenry. Not enough knowledge of religion. Not enough honest, capitalism free of force-and-fraud initiation (including those force and fraud initiating bodyshoppers and privacy attackers & violators in the Seattle, NY, & Sili Valley & academia executive suites). Too much crony socialism. Too many people defenseless people. Too many force and fraud initiating collectivists like this "anti-Trumper".

    364. Re:Seriously, America. by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      The shootings will continue as long as this death cult with 3~4% of the population

      At the same time I'm pretty sure calling them a death cult makes several people plant their feet that much harder and shove their fingers in their ears that much further.

    365. Re:Seriously, America. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Some will, but it might help some wake up to what they really are: a death cult with magical beliefs, that wants to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of random and presumably unwilling Americans (and some Mexicans and Canadians) for the cause of lighter paperwork and less responsibility for American gun owners.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    366. Re: Seriously, America. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Take a moment to think about your claim. If your claim was true, Heller wouldn't have happened. Yet Heller happened. It's almost like your claim isn't actually true.

      Also, read your own damn quote:

      The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

      That, at most, restricted Federal gun control laws, allowing the states to do what they wanted.....which they did....and they passed laws....in 1975....that were not invalidated until Heller.

      Ta-da! You now have the actual progression of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment instead of the hand-waving desperately attempting to make you ignore a shitload of laws that somehow managed to withstand scrutiny until Heller.

    367. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Well I think we'll both be letting Brazil do whatever it wants by default but Brazil's violence problem largely stems from the complex social issues that either define or often come along with being a third world nation like massive wealth inequality, extreme poverty, and incredibly corrupt government. Anyone in the social sciences will tell you that those are all key drivers of violence in society. Therefore, using Brazil as a testing ground for US policy isn't terribly enlightening because we'd have to figure out a way to control for all of those huge issues. This is why comparisons to other first world nations are used for stuff like this because they all have (pretty much by definition) similar levels of these issues.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    368. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      False. Most of the "refugees" mass migrating into Europe are economic migrants, taking advantage of foolish immigration policies and a generous welfare state.
      No they aren't. We have no real "immigration policies". You basically simply cant immigrate at all!! And immigrants/refugees don't get welfare. Unless you count a room and food and no money welfare. This year AFAIK is the first year that refugees can even work in Germany ... those can later immigrate after having a job for a couple (10?) years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    369. Re: Seriously, America. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      And yet handguns are those where nobody has even a tenuous excuse for owning one. Shit, even Lynyrd Skynyrd did a song about this.

    370. Re: Seriously, America. by dddux · · Score: 1

      I'm all for people being able to buy guns, but as here in Europe you shouldn't be able to buy it so easily. Here, you have to present documents like your criminal record and history of mental illnesses. That would be enough to cut down on at least some of shootings like this, because young demented people like this would have to go through some "hoops" to get a gun. Or buy it on the black market, of course, but that's a hoop too. Having said that, the problem is actually much bigger. It's the modern culture, which includes so many things I just don't have time to count all of them, and that is much harder to change. Starting with encouraging narcissism and competition, shaming of smart people and glorifying idiots, envy and vanity is rampant... etc. Change the values of this culture and we will have no more shit like this.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    371. Re:Seriously, America. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Concealed weapons permits are trivial to get here in FL.

      And a person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon in Florida would not be carrying at the Jacksonville Landing because:

      Possession of a weapon, even if legally carried (except by law enforcement officers) is absolutely prohibited on Landing property.

    372. Re:Seriously, America. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee that this happened in a "gun free zone."

      It was:

      Possession of a weapon, even if legally carried (except by law enforcement officers) is absolutely prohibited on Landing property.

      https://www.jacksonvillelandin...

    373. Re: Seriously, America. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Not gun-free zone. Please stop. Signed, anon guy who actually lives in Jax.

      The Jacksonville Landing rules of conduct say otherwise:

      https://www.jacksonvillelandin...

    374. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I live in Europe, dude. Stop talking about things you don't know shit about.
      Guns are easiest to get in the UK, followed by France, both being at least an order of magnitude more difficult than USA. Worth mentioning that carrying guns without permit is illegal throughout Europe.

      I said 120 years too late not according to when the right to bear arms was ratified, but according to when it should have been repelled.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    375. Re:Seriously, America. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      No, I don't need to prove my point given the previous statement was unfounded. You choose to believe the other guy? Fine, do so, see if I care.
      The first person making statements also needs to back them up.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    376. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      No they aren't.

      Yes they are.

      We have no real "immigration policies".

      Merkel foolishly or traitorously opened the door to "refugees" after the outbreak of war in Syria. What ensued was a flood of migrants pouring in from countries that had nothing to do with Syria. She and the EU then chastised Europe about how all the countries had to share the burden for her foolish actions, while wise countries with a backbone refused and enforced their border.

      Unless you count a room and food and no money welfare.

      Yes, free room and board is welfare. What planet are you on that these magically fall from the sky? And you're wrong about not getting money, too. And then there's healthcare.

    377. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Notice I didn't say "guns".

      I said "illegal firearms".

      A fine point, but an important one.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    378. Re:Seriously, America. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Translation: Talking out your ass.

      Good to know!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    379. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Brazil's violence problem largely stems from the complex social issues that either define or often come along with being a third world nation like massive wealth inequality, extreme poverty, and incredibly corrupt government.

      We're getting there on the wealth inequality, and the government is rotting from the head down. That same government would also love to enrich their "base" even if it means poverty for more people -- or maybe especially if it means poverty for more people, because it can then pin the blame on "the Mexicans" and "the Muslims". You know Doctor Smallglove would enjoy starting the pogroms.

      In other words, I don't think we're more than a few missed meals from becoming Brazil.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    380. Re:Seriously, America. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Like any set of observations taken from a distance, you can't eliminate confounding factors. You can only check for them and compensate accordingly. I mean, I suppose the CIA could muck about in Brazil's internal process to steer things the way it wants, but then you just have a different set of confounding factors (not to mention it's unethical -- not that this ever stops them). Are you seriously proposing that because it's impossible to run a control country where the laws don't change, no conclusions can be drawn from what happens?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    381. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Merkel foolishly or traitorously opened the door to "refugees" after the outbreak of war in Syria
      It was not foolish, it was the right thing to do, are you an asshole or what?
      They are refugees, not immigrants.

      Yes, free room and board is welfare. What planet are you on that these magically fall from the sky?
      I live in Europe, not in a third world country. Obviously we have space, room, food for refugees.

      Obviously they get healthcare, are you really an asshole? Why the funk would a guest in my house, in my country not get healthcare??? What fucking religion do you follow to deny the most holiest rights mankind holds up since 10 or more millennia? Google Gastrecht, and then dig yourself a grave, we don't need people like you on this planet.

      And you're wrong about not getting money, too.
      You did not read the link, did you? The link supports my point, you are not only an asshole, probably a nazi, but also an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    382. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      It was not foolish, it was the right thing to do, are you an asshole or what?

      Pathological altruism. No, it was the wrong thing to do for Germany and Europe. If you want to help them, help them in their own lands. Help them in countries where they are already safe. Instead, you encourage them to flood into your countries, including not only "refugees", but economic migrants.

      I live in Europe, not in a third world country. Obviously we have space, room, food for refugees.

      So it doesn't matter if you displace your own people, seize their wealth, compromise their security, and risk their civilization by a supremacist and foreign ideology with a deep-seated hatred towards the West?

      You did not read the link, did you?

      Did you? They only took away his allowance 13 years after they rejected his asylum claim. He should have been deported 13 years ago, but instead was receiving an allowance the whole time.

    383. Re: Seriously, America. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      'm all for people being able to buy guns, but as here in Europe you shouldn't be able to buy it so easily. Here, you have to present documents like your criminal record and history of mental illnesses.

      When buying new guns, you have to go through a mandatory instant background check.

      You have to do this in many states too, even for private used gun transactions.

      In my state, you can do private transactions without a govt intervention or background check, but that hasn't proven to be very troublesome.

      But if you want to buy a new gun locally, or if you buy online either a new or used gun, you have to go through the background checks at a FFL dealer, and you also have to go through even more scrutiny if you want to get a suppressor, or short barreled shotgun or rifle, and for each of those latter 3 items, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp on each item.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    384. Re: Seriously, America. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I was going to post this, as well... It's like people in other countries think we can walk into a convenience store and just buy a gun in the US. So wrong they all are.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    385. Re: Seriously, America. by dddux · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that. Obviously. ;) Thanks for clarifying. So it isn't that easy to buy a gun in the US after all. And the tax is quite high.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    386. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Instead, you encourage them to flood into your countries,
      That is actually what we do, and try to improve. Does not work in a war zone, though. "Please stay in your war torn country, just don't go to the front line, oki?!" Does not really work that way.

      So it doesn't matter if you displace your own people, seize their wealth, compromise their security, and risk their civilization by a supremacist and foreign ideology with a deep-seated hatred towards the West?
      We don't do that. And if they would "hate the west", they would not come here. You mix up America with the west. It was America that bombed Iraq and created the ISIS, and it is Europe that pays the bills.

      Did you? They only took away his allowance 13 years after they rejected his asylum claim. He should have been deported 13 years ago, but instead was receiving an allowance the whole time.
      And what is wrong with that?????

      You seem not to get anything. He got money under the claim he is seeking asylum. But did not provide the necessary papers to back up his origin. So it got canceled.

      Why should we sent a guy back who did not commit any crime? You are a moron, plain and simple.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    387. Re: Seriously, America. by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I know exactly what it is. But when you have no recourse , then yes, you are living under a totalitarian regime. When the state (not the people, the STATE) owns the means of production, you are a slave.

    388. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That is actually what we do, and try to improve. Does not work in a war zone, though.

      No, because you have these people crossing multiple safe countries to arrive in Europe. Merkel laid out the welcome mat, and predictably the flood came.

      We don't do that.

      You're in denial. I gave you a link to where a woman was being displaced to make room for "refugees".

      And if they would "hate the west", they would not come here.

      Why not? Have you never heard of invasion? Muslims invading Europe used to get repelled by armies. Now you just invite them in, shove your people aside, and give them welfare. In return for your pathological kindness, they slaughter your people at Christmas markets, sexually assault your women in gangs, and ignore your laws for their own. All while you pay the jizya like a flock of stupid sheep.

      And what is wrong with that?????

      So you first claim they get no money, and now you ask what is wrong with a "refugee" receiving an allowance for 13 years after he was supposed to be deported?

      You seem not to get anything. [..] Why should we sent a guy back who did not commit any crime? You are a moron, plain and simple.

      You are a useful idiot beyond help.

    389. Re:Seriously, America. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No one who is educated in the social sciences thinks we're anywhere near third world status. There is a massive gap between the economic prosperity of the two nations in question here just as there is a major gap in your grasp on how the world works.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    390. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No, because you have these people crossing multiple safe countries to arrive in Europe. Merkel laid out the welcome mat, and predictably the flood came.
      First of all: how would we avoid them traveling through a safe country?
      Secondly: which country would you consider save?

      So you first claim they get no money, and now you ask what is wrong with a "refugee" receiving an allowance for 13 years after he was supposed to be deported?
      Because they don't get Hatz IV, they only get something like $200 pocket money per month.

      13 years after he was supposed to be deported?
      He was not supposed to be deported. He stays until his refugee status changes. And that only changes if his home country is considered save. Usually if he stays long enough, learns the language, has a work permit, he can stay, with status "connived". Or if he has children in school here, or is married to one who has a "permit of stay" (or is German, obviously)

      Merkel laid out the welcome mat, and predictably the flood came.
      You are bad with reading news.
      The refugees came first, and then Merkel formed politics to organize how to receive them.

      You are a useful idiot beyond help.
      The idiot is you, you lecture about a situation you have no knowledge about. That is plain stupid. You give advice and hint about a situation you don't comprehend. You blame a politician for refugees seeking asylum into the EU, while that politician only has influence over Germany. That is simply brain dead.
      Then you claimed at the first post, Germany should change its immigration laws. Germany has no immigration laws! This year is the first time that politicians argue and give proposals to make one.

      Even for an American or Canadian married to a German, it is extremely complex to come here and stay and get finally a life long permit to stay. If I marry my Thai GF, she needs a visa to visit me in Germany, it is ridiculous.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    391. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      First of all: how would we avoid them traveling through a safe country?

      Why would you want to? How about they just stop at the first safe country, especially countries where the culture is more like their own. And you're ignoring that the majority are economic migrants.

      Secondly: which country would you consider save?

      As an example, the dead boy on the beach was taken from a safe environment in Turkey by his father.

      Because they don't get Hatz IV, they only get something like $200 pocket money per month.

      You said they didn't get money. You were wrong.

      He was not supposed to be deported.

      Yes, he was. He used every trick, legal loophole, and spineless inaction by the government to avoid it. And after 13 years, the best the government could come up with was to take away his allowance.

      The refugees came first, and then Merkel formed politics to organize how to receive them.

      She turned a stream of "refugees" into a flood:

      "Merkel's suspension of the Dublin II accord and her decision to do away with all effective vetting of asylum applications submitted by Syrians looks certain to lead to an unprecedented number of migrants arriving in the country; according to the latest estimates, 1.5 million refugees are likely to have arrived in Germany in 2015 alone."

      you lecture about a situation you have no knowledge about

      *snort* You're the one that has been wrong on every front, in complete denial of news reports. You haven't even provided one link in this debate, while I have provided many. You even accused me of not reading a link, when it showed that you were the one who was wrong.

      You blame a politician for refugees seeking asylum into the EU, while that politician only has influence over Germany.

      Even you can't be this dumb. Laying out the doormat for Germany was obviously going to affect other countries and Europe, and it did. The EU even tried to force other countries to take their "fair share", while wise countries with a backbone told them to fuck off.

      You are beyond a useful idiot. You are a bleating sheep with blinkers on your eyes:

      "Muslims invading Europe used to get repelled by armies. Now you just invite them in, shove your people aside, and give them welfare. In return for your pathological kindness, they slaughter your people at Christmas markets, sexually assault your women in gangs, and ignore your laws for their own. All while you pay the jizya like a flock of stupid sheep."

    392. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Because they don't get Hatz IV, they only get something like $200 pocket money per month.

      You said they didn't get money. You were wrong.

      No, I were not wrong. I exagerated. I could not know before that you are a nitpicker.

      As an example, the dead boy on the beach was taken from a safe environment in Turkey by his father.
      First of all, as long as Turkey is considered save, we don't accept refugees from there. You should know that after all your ranting about "safe countries".
      However as you probably know since Erdogan is in power, Turkey is not considered a safe country I'm tempted to add a specific word ...

      Yes, he was. He used every trick, legal loophole, and spineless inaction by the government to avoid it. And after 13 years, the best the government could come up with was to take away his allowance.
      Supposed to be deported means: a judge/court has ruled so. As long as there is no such ruling, he is not supposed to be deported.

      Even you can't be this dumb. Laying out the doormat for Germany was obviously going to affect other countries and Europe, and it did.
      Germany did not lay out a doormat. No idea to what you are referring.

      The EU even tried to force other countries to take their "fair share",
      Obviously, because that is their obligation under EU law.
      while wise countries with a backbone told them to fuck off.
      Except for Poland, I don't recall such a country, Hungary or Bulgaria perhaps?
      Lets see how long countries that don't take refugees remain in the EU.

      Now you just invite them in, shove your people aside, and give them welfare. In return for your pathological kindness, they [1] slaughter your people at Christmas markets, [2] sexually assault your women in gangs, and ignore your laws for their own.
      Obviously you are not aware that [1] were terrorists, and usually not refugees but recruited immigrants or descendants of immigrants and [2] were organized and bribed by Neonazi groups.
      In other words: [1] would always have happened because the people involved are born here. It is pretty hard to do anything against it. And [2] would not happen if we had not idiots like you. Idiots like you, who don't want embrace refugees, are the masterminds of organizing such sexual assaults.

      Hint: how likely is it that in two cities at the same time, dozens if not hundreds of groups of 5 to 20 men form and start harassing women by coincident? Why did that not happen in the other 300 big cities of Germany? Huh? I guess the women are to ugly there or to well defended?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    393. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      No, I were not wrong. I exagerated. I could not know before that you are a nitpicker.

      You were factually wrong. That you're trying to pass this off as an "exaggeration" is pathetic.

      First of all, as long as Turkey is considered save, we don't accept refugees from there.

      "Mrs Merkel had already taken a unique initiative in announcing that all Syrian refugees would be eligible to claim asylum in Germany - unilaterally, and rightly, waiving the so-called Dublin procedures, under which displaced people must claim asylum in the first EU state that they arrive in."

      You are conflating people who are citizens of Turkey versus "refugees" who did not originate from Turkey. Not that it matters where they actually originated from, since all they have to do is ditch any papers and claim asylum status based on whatever they are told to say. In practice, once they are in a European country the odds of them being deported are small.

      Germany did not lay out a doormat. No idea to what you are referring.

      Like I said, you are beyond a useful idiot. A bleating sheep with blinkers on your eyes:

      "Merkel's suspension of the Dublin II accord and her decision to do away with all effective vetting of asylum applications submitted by Syrians looks certain to lead to an unprecedented number of migrants arriving in the country; according to the latest estimates, 1.5 million refugees are likely to have arrived in Germany in 2015 alone."

      Except for Poland, I don't recall such a country, Hungary or Bulgaria perhaps?

      Funny how you lecture me about being ignorant, when you're wrong about everything, and even when you actually admit your ignorance, you can't do a simple search to find the answer.

      Obviously you are not aware that [1] were terrorists, and usually not refugees but recruited immigrants or descendants of immigrants and [2] were organized and bribed by Neonazi groups.

      Does it hurt to have your head so far up your ass?

    394. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      "Merkel's suspension of the Dublin II accord and her decision to do away with all effective vetting of asylum applications submitted by Syrians looks certain to lead to an unprecedented number of migrants arriving in the country; according to the latest estimates, 1.5 million refugees are likely to have arrived in Germany in 2015 alone."
      You are an idiot.
      Where should those 1.5million Syrian refugees be? Germany has 80million inhabitants, that is nearly 2 Syrians per 100 people. Last time I walked through the city I did not see 2 Syrians per 100 citizens. As we don't place them in rural areas, it would need to be 4 per 100 citizens in a city. That is one for 25. Do you really think all those Syrians are scared about me and hiding from me?

      How can you be such an idiot? But thank you, that you honour our economical power so much that you really believe we would be able to harbour 1.5 million refugees in a single year. I take that as a compliment!

      "Mrs Merkel had already taken a unique initiative in announcing that all Syrian refugees would be eligible to claim asylum in Germany - unilaterally, and rightly, waiving the so-called Dublin procedures, under which displaced people must claim asylum in the first EU state that they arrive in."
      She did not. That is another internet myth.

      You link: EU to sue Poland, Hungary and Czechs for refusing refugee quotas
      I wrote: Except for Poland, I don't recall such a country, Hungary or Bulgaria perhaps?
      Strange, that I'm so ignorant and got 2 countries right.

      Perhaps you want to read this, to get some facts straight: https://www.dw.com/en/germanys...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    395. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Where should those 1.5million Syrian refugees be?

      How about spread out in Muslim countries? The poster dead-boy-on-the-beach was already safe in Turkey before his father took him on a dangerous trip.

      Germany has 80million inhabitants, that is nearly 2 Syrians per 100 people.

      Liked the blinkered sheep that you are, you continually ignore that the majority of people flooding in to Europe were not actually Syrian, the majority are economic migrants, and the majority are young males. And even if they were all valid Syrian "refugees", it's not Europe's responsibility to invite a hostile, supremacist, and alien culture into their midst.

      She did not. That is another internet myth.

      Your levels of denial are astounding. Again, I provided links, while you deny what the links say. I quoted from The Guardian. Where is your alternative source? Oh, that's right, you don't have any. Too busy making up Nazi conspiracy theories for Islamic attacks.

      Strange, that I'm so ignorant and got 2 countries right.

      Yes, ignorant enough that you had to ask the question, and had to guess at the other two besides Poland, and only got one right. And also too fucking lazy to search for the answer yourself, and would rather bleat about your ignorance after lecturing me about my supposed ignorance.

      Perhaps you want to read this, to get some facts straight:

      laugh What "facts" would you like me to get straight? Like "no money" being given to "refugees"? Like nobody being displaced? That Merkel didn't open the floodgates? Like Nazi conspiracy theories? You truly are a fucking joke.

    396. Re: Seriously, America. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Syrian, the majority are economic migrants, and the majority are young males. And even if they were all valid Syrian "refugees", it's not Europe's responsibility to invite a hostile, supremacist, and alien culture into their midst.
      Wow nitpicking again. So they are "just refugees", lets leave off the nationality: point is, there are no 2 million new immigrants/refugees in Germany. They only passed through. The total number still here is about 600k

      And also too fucking lazy to search for the answer yourself
      Ha ha ha. The answer does not interest me. Those are all nazi countries I don't plan to visit.

      Like "no money" being given to "refugees"?
      Exactly, a small amount of "pocket money" which is enough to buy a beer every day and eat an ice, is not "giving money".

      Like nobody being displaced?
      Exactly. Who and how would you displace one in Germany to take his house for refugees?

      Like "no money" being given to "refugees"?
      Exactly :D Your beloved Dublin accord was suspended for roughly 3 month during the winter when Bulgaria and Hungary lead hundreds die behind the border in the cold. You hardly can call that "open the flood gates".

      And finally, why do you care? You don't live in the EU, or do you? Solve your own problems first, then you might learn enough to give advice.

      The problem at the moment are by far not the situation in Syria, but the people drowning in the Mediterranean sea.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    397. Re: Seriously, America. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Wow nitpicking again. So they are "just refugees"

      I'm not "nitpicking", you blinkered sheep. The point is that they are not "just refugees". The majority are economic migrants. And even if they were "just refugees", they can fuck off to some other Muslim country. You don't see Muslim countries welcoming in "refugees" from non-Muslim countries, do you?

      there are no 2 million new immigrants/refugees in Germany. They only passed through. The total number still here is about 600k

      Even if that is true, then that is 600k too many. And how many shuffled along to other countries in Europe?

      The answer does not interest me.

      Then why did you ask the question and guess at an answer? Your pathetic excuses for your failures are dull.

      And that's pretty much it. You've shown yourself, over and over again, to be a dull, blinkered sheep. You can keep living in denial, while reality intrudes around you:

      "Muslims invading Europe used to get repelled by armies. Now you just invite them in, shove your people aside, and give them welfare. In return for your pathological kindness, they slaughter your people at Christmas markets, sexually assault your women in gangs, and ignore your laws for their own. All while you pay the jizya like a flock of stupid sheep."

  2. Re:Can we finally admit? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent?

    I don't know about that, but I think we ought to be able to agree that video games are not a substitute for parenting.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Two things... by Highdude702 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From TFA:

    Update: The Los Angeles Times reports that the suspect was a competitor at the tournament who had lost.

    Also, there seems to be a problem with Florida. Maybe we should build a wall around there?

    1. Re:Two things... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Damnit! I also meant to say after the quote: This is what happens when you don't discipline your children.
      My bad, the weed is really good....

    2. Re:Two things... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Also, there seems to be a problem with Florida. Maybe we should build a wall around there?

      I think Mexico might actually be willing to pay for that one ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Two things... by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unlike many States, most people in Florida were born somewhere else. Putting up a wall would obviously improve that situation for Florida but now we'd be stuck with the people who otherwise would have moved there. Just look at the news! We should be thanking Florida for being appealing to these people.

    4. Re:Two things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike many States, most people in Florida were born somewhere else. Putting up a wall would obviously improve that situation for Florida but now we'd be stuck with the people who otherwise would have moved there. Just look at the news! We should be thanking Florida for being appealing to these people.

      The problem is that even though intelligent people go to Florida, something happens there that changes them into idiots. Maybe it's the climate, the food, the guns, the politics ? Who knows.
      But if you meet an idiot you can bet your ass he/she is coming from Florida 99,99% of the time.

    5. Re:Two things... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      I live in Las Vegas, I would say 95% of the people here aren't born here. I know a handful of people and I have lived here for almost 30 years.

    6. Re:Two things... by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      well after they fucked up that butterfly ballot in 2000, nothing surprises me.

    7. Re:Two things... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Also, there seems to be a problem with Florida. Maybe we should build a wall around there?

      Finally, a good argument in favor of Trump's coal promotion plan. If the oceans rise another hundred feet when most of the ice melts, Florida will disappear completely.

    8. Re:Two things... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      intelligent people

      See also: Dunning-Kruger effect

    9. Re:Two things... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      There seems to be a problem with your knowledge of geography. Unless Baltimore is now in Florida and nobody told me?

    10. Re:Two things... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Another update: The shooter was a member of Anti-Trump resistance. So, extremist Leftist.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:Two things... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that even though intelligent people go to Florida,

      [citation needed]

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Two things... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Build the wall and he can't get from Baltimore to Florida, and then there's no mass shooting.

      (Insert meme of guy tapping his head here)

    13. Re:Two things... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine, who is native to Jacksonville, says this frequently, actually. (And yes, he still lives in Jax)

    14. Re:Two things... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Yes I heard, I find it funny honestly/ I feel bad for all the familys that lost a loved one. But I'm used to feeling bad for the people that endure the liberal violence. They do say that reality is left leaning.

    15. Re:Two things... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Now there's a study:

      Are morons naturally drawn to Florida for some reason, or does moving to Florida make one more likely to eventually become a moron?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  4. Re:Can we finally admit? by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    Uh, no.

    We have a person who was mad at Valve because he took away his easy income. It could have easily been a stock broker or a online scammer losing his income lashing out.

    Maybe we should stop selling the american dream of easy money and a government with a "hands off" attitude to mental health.

  5. Why the quotes? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Why the quotes? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes?

      Just a guess, but I suspect that the original article was put out before the police got through going over the scene.

      This matters because "mass shooting" has a legal definition. It requires that at least four people be shot (not necessarily killed, but shot), among other things. Until they were sure that four people were shot (not necessarily by the perp), calling it a mass shooting was incorrect.

      Note, by the by, that in this case, the perp committing suicide was pretty much required to make it a mass shooting - he was the fourth.

      Qualifier: haven't read the latest news on the event. As of the last news I've seen, total casualties were four (including the shooter), but that may have changed....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Why the quotes? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."

      It was a mass shooting, so why was it put in quotes? Seems rather disrespectful to me, like someone saying, "so you were in a 'mass shooting' and you're a 'victim'? Sure you were."

      depending on the economics you use mass shootings might or might not include the Madden shooting.

      --
      Just another second banana
  6. Thoughts and prayers are needed by JoeyRox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And more guns of course.

    1. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun narrative you wish to project

      It also doesn't align with common sense, but God saw it fit to leave that out of some individuals as well.

    2. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, more guns - along with proper "regulation" (i.e. aim) would have greatly reduced the number of casualties... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...

      Okay, I'll bite, how would giving the shooter better aim help reduce how many he killed, you moron?

    3. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by nnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You left out how many were protected by guns, all that got reported was how many didn't. Please provide data.

    4. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      A room full of armed people trying to locate a shooter and stop them... They would be mistaking each other for the killer, missing and hitting bystanders. I really doubt it would have made things better.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by skam240 · · Score: 1

      But with far less guns in the model of most other first world nations the shooter would most likely never have been able to get a gun and no one would have been killed at all... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun control narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    6. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Laws or no laws, there's no putting the gun genie back in the barrel. We could ban all guns outright, and five, ten years down the line it still won't be that hard to get one, just because there are so many out there. After that, consumer-grade CNC mills and 3D printers will be able to make them at home.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    7. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by skam240 · · Score: 2

      it would be a long drawn out solution but it would most certainly work in the end. Most guns not voluntarily turned in would turn up for police over time. Australia is a real world example of a country which relatively recently highly restricted gun ownership to a high degree of success.

      In the short term it's possible it might hurt but it's stupid to keep doing something stupid because the solution would hurt for a while.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    8. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Then why is the murder rate in Brazil ten times that of the U.S., while they have strict gun control? Many of the guns used in homicides end up being traced back to the police, and if you think we're somehow more immune to corruption than they are, you haven't been paying attention to the current state of the Federal government, or to the past (and to a degree, present) history of rural and small-town police forces.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    9. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by skam240 · · Score: 2

      Because you're comparing a third world country to a first. It's practically a sociological fact that high poverty or wealth inequality breeds crime. This is why you never hear a reasonable person making the comparison you are trying to make here.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    10. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't noticed, we're well on the way to that kind of income inequality.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    11. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll bite, how would giving the shooter better aim help reduce how many he killed, you moron?

      Think of it like XML circa the mid 2000s. If it's not really doing a good job, you're not using enough.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Then why is the murder rate in Brazil ten times that of the U.S.,

      You're really selling the US here. Less murderous than Brazil. Freer than North Korea. Better landscapes than Belgium.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to "sell" the U.S. I'm trying to demonstrate that strict gun control can, in fact, aggravate the problem rather than decrease it.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    14. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by JabrTheHut · · Score: 1

      Australia is so scary as an example they have set up a pro-gun lobby and started funding right wingers to weaken gun laws. Their messaging is off though - they aren’t convincing anyone but the already convinced.

      --
      Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
    15. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      It has happened about as often as people in the room have managed to use their guns to stop a mass shooting.

      ie: both are statistically a fiction.

    16. Re:Thoughts and prayers are needed by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Or maybe fewer people that think prayers are the answer. Stop relying on your made up invisible pink unicorn and start living in the real world.

      You're as bad as the fuckwit councilman for the area.

      âoeMy solution is we really need to talk about God. Iâ(TM)m asking the faith-based community to step up, Gaffney said.

      What, the god that supports the murder of people for daring to be homosexual? The god that supports the murder of people for daring to worship a different god?

      I'll take the 'more guns' option thanks, at least they're honest.

    17. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      And more guns of course.

      Yes, more guns - along with proper "regulation" (i.e. aim) would have greatly reduced the number of casualties... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...

      That's because more guns wouldn't have helped the situation. Heck police can't be counted on to aim properly half the time and they're supposed to be in training regularly. It's a video game tournament the chances of them training their marksmanship instead of their stickwork in laughably slim. With more guns you have more shooters. It's harder to tell who to run from because the bad guy isn't going to be wearing a red vest. So no only will you have way more stray bullets but also more people putting themselves in danger running from whatever person looks more scary potentially at the bad guy shooter.

      --
      Just another second banana
    18. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to "sell" the U.S. I'm trying to demonstrate that strict gun control can, in fact, aggravate the problem rather than decrease it.

      Not really. Brazil is very much a "developing country" with a much lower GPD per capita, huge corruption problems and so on and so forth. And there's no indication that it's the feared (and incredibly ineffective) gun control rather tha nthe massive amounts of crime, corruption and drug money.

      If you comapre the US to a first world country, your comparisons don't hold up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    19. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by skam240 · · Score: 1

      For now our middle class is big enough so we don't have the necessary poverty yet to really be a third world country.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    20. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we'll get hard data. There is a movement in Brazil to grant private individuals the right to keep and bear arms, based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

      Forty-two percent of Brazilians believe gun ownership is a citizen’s right, according to a November survey by pollster Datafolha. That’s up from 30 percent four years earlier. And of the lower house lawmakers who have expressed opinions publicly, slightly more than half support the proposed legislation, according to a scoreboard maintained by Peninha’s staff.

      Fellow lawmaker Bolsonaro, a former Army captain, has been preaching the gospel of gun rights as part of his law-and-order pitch to voters. In polls he trails only former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will likely be barred from running.

      Brazil’s gun policy needs to change, Bolsonaro said at an event in Congress on March 7. He drew cheers from his supporters when he joked that the so-called “bullet caucus” of lawmakers united by their tough stance on crime should be renamed the “machine gun caucus."

      “Dictatorships only take root after disarmament programs,” he said.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    21. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Yes, more guns - along with proper "regulation" (i.e. aim)

      If you're trying to use "regulation" as in the Second Amendment, then you're mistaken about the usage. "Regulated" in the Second pretty much meant "trained". As in "a well trained militia being necessary...".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    22. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For now our middle class is big enough so we don't have the necessary poverty yet to really be a third world country.

      Okay, for now. But not for long, at this rate. Also, poverty is lumpy. It doesn't get spread evenly across the nation. It impacts some communities and even some households far more than others.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Well if we slide into third world status it will then become meaningful to compare us to other third world countries. As of right now I don't think (and the social sciences generally agree with me here) that comparing the US to third world countries on social problems like this is meaningful.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    24. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As of right now I don't think that comparing the US to third world countries on social problems like this is meaningful.

      We are like them in some ways, unlike them in others, and becoming more like them every day. Wealth inequality continues to rise, so does unemployment (only total dumbshits believe the U-2 unemployment rate has any validity whatsoever) and our infrastructure is crumbling. The amount we spend on education in inflated dollars continues to fall. There are good reasons to compare the USA with third-world nations.

      (and the social sciences generally agree with me here)

      [citation needed]

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      LOL. The old fake news right?

    26. Re: Thoughts and prayers are needed by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No one formally educated in the social sciences would compare the current United States to a third world nation in the manner that xonservatives want them compared in terms of gun violence. I know this because I'm formally educated in the social sciences. If you like I will type up an explanation but I'm not wasting my time searching for an authoritative source to site on that claim.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  7. Re: Can we finally admit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The way people act about American football, either playing or watching, is just as violent or worse than any video games. When are people going to admit and do something about that?

  8. hmm by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    another incel trumper?

    1. Re: hmm by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Are they also mostly sexually abused? Just that.. most rapists were.

      It's almost as though people that step substantially away from the norm have complex issues for which they haven't received appropriate support or something.

  9. Easier than a wall by raymorris · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    > Also, there seems to be a problem with Florida. Maybe we should build a wall around there?

    Agreed there seems to be a problem with Florida.
    Florida MIGHT be second place to California for being weird and fucked up in all sorts of ways.

    I have to disagree on the wall, thing though, only because there is a more effective and less-costly option. I have it on good authority that California and Florida will be underwater by 2020 if we do nothing at all. The way that statement was phrased, I think it was supposed to be scary, but it seems alright to me.

    1. Re:Easier than a wall by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this global warming thing ain't so bad after all... Plus I'll be able to drive to the ocean in half the time from Vegas..

    2. Re:Easier than a wall by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      How does that work for Chicago?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Easier than a wall by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      In Las Vegas, We shoot back.

    4. Re:Easier than a wall by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      How does that work for Chicago?

      If neighboring states had the same gun control laws as Illinois Chicago wouldn't have a gun problem. for all the talk about how bad guys don't care if their guns are legal... their guns are legally purchased.

      --
      Just another second banana
    5. Re:Easier than a wall by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      The conjecture is that rising water would solve the problem.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:Easier than a wall by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Forgot to post as AC?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  10. The NRA has been saying... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...for years that "Guns don't kill people; video games do!" Looks like they're right for once.

    1. Re:The NRA has been saying... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      ...for years that "Guns don't kill people; video games do!" Looks like they're right for once.

      Pretty sure there was a gun involved in the shooing.

    2. Re:The NRA has been saying... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure I was being facetious.

    3. Re:The NRA has been saying... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure there was a gun involved in the shooing.

      Yup, and it just got up on its own and killed those two people. All by itself.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:The NRA has been saying... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure I was being facetious.

      Pretty sure I was too.

    5. Re:The NRA has been saying... by johnsie · · Score: 1

      The ironic thing is that it was a sports game and not an FPS "murder simulator" that they were playing.

    6. Re:The NRA has been saying... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. We'd all have laughed if the Twitch stream had shown a football bouncing off the chest of one of the competitors, cut to the crowd, some skinny shit from Baltimore holding another ball screaming, "Take that, you superior Madden player!"

    7. Re:The NRA has been saying... by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      ...for years that "Guns don't kill people; video games do!" Looks like they're right for once.

      see I heard differently. i heard it was an old school bullet shooting gun not a video game shooting gun.

      --
      Just another second banana
    8. Re:The NRA has been saying... by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure I was being facetious.

      bah. poe's law'd again.

      --
      Just another second banana
    9. Re:The NRA has been saying... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      When I first heard about it I was thinking great, here come all the BS about video games causing gun violence.... Then I saw it was Madden 19!

      I think this should put the argument to rest. I mean a football game, really?

      Also is it just me or is Florida batshit crazy with the guns?

    10. Re:The NRA has been saying... by proibido · · Score: 1

      It was not the gun who killed them, it was the bullet...

  11. Proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is proof that sports , and sport themed video games are promoting bad behavior.

    Both football, and football video games should be banned.

    If not banned, we need a 10 day waiting period, background checks a full psyche evaluation, and a registry of people who purchase this game and play football.

    All football players should be treated like criminals, and be monitored via ankle bracelets 24x7x365.

    This should extend to referees, managers, coaches, and staff.

    Anyone who is against this promotes bad things!

    Football, and football game culture is bad culture.

  12. Over football game?! by sinij · · Score: 1

    Couldn't the shooter at least pick a decent game to go on a killing spree over?

  13. Re: Can we finally admit? by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As opposed to the violence in European football? The ones we hear about every single year, including where a certain group has said women should be barred from the first few rows of a game?

  14. They've gone Madden by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    rename it to Calmmen

  15. how many shootings before say 1960s ? by gDLL · · Score: 1

    how many shootings before say 1960s ? when there was no guns/religion/capitalism/freedom.

    1. Re: how many shootings before say 1960s ? by nmo.marques · · Score: 1

      2nd ammendment is from the 60s?

    2. Re: how many shootings before say 1960s ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's making a point.

      There were guns, religion, white supremacy, toxic masculinity, and all the other horrors your purple haired teacher told you about.

      What there wasn't was 39% of the population on mood-altering pharmaceuticals, and constant 24/7 emotional manipulation by media conglomerates and their advertisers.

    3. Re:how many shootings before say 1960s ? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure this was a gun free zone, with no firearms allowed, so no one would have had a gun.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re: how many shootings before say 1960s ? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      If I may say, "nonsense". Gun control expanded profoundly in the 1960's, but there was some gun regulation throughout American history. Some of it was to prevent private militias, some of it was straightforward safety regulation to prevent mishandling of gunpowder.

    5. Re: how many shootings before say 1960s ? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Since this was a case of someone getting pissed off about a game and having easy access to a gun, if more people were armed we would probably see more people getting pissed off and start shooting. In fact, this is where the first gun regulations in the 17th and 18th century for schools came from... armed hormone filled teenagers tended to get into fights and it would escalate, so they banned weapons in schools.. the numbers of fights did not go down, but the lethality of them did.

    6. Re: how many shootings before say 1960s ? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, they expanded greatly in the 60's, that's what I meant. Before that, they mostly only applied to blacks.

  16. Found him: by Urinal+Pube · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it was this kid all grown up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  17. Re:YAAWG by Megol · · Score: 1

    That "asshole with guns" was referring to a piece of shit that killed innocent people over bullshit.

    So you really think it's better to murder people than being weaponless?

  18. Re:come and take them. please. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

    Oh what a surprise, another left piece of shit shows on /. to stand on the still warm bodies of the victims of a mass shooting.

    Good point. It would be better to a respectful period of time - say until the pain of loss has faded - to realize you therefore no longer have emotional motivation to fix the problem.

    The people pointing out issues with pro-gun-culture aren't the problem here. By definition, the people causing these problems are people with guns. What you're doing - as a nation - doesn't work. America tried it the NRA-way, and it's only getting worse. So I'd like to respectfully suggest that you take the moral outrage and bereavement and use it not to call random Internet strangers names, but instead to drive you to... fix your shit.

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  19. Re:Just listen to yourself. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but no. I don't want to glorify mass mayhem and terrorism. I really don't want people to "think for themselves" when their apparent thought process is: "If I shoot 20 people, I'll make the first slot on the 11:00 news."

    Better to bury the news and not publish their names and faces in public -- no need to encourage copycat crimes.

  20. i live in europe too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you delusional ? Ahem Bataclan, Ahem Nice ....

  21. Re:Can we finally admit? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I think we can finally agree that EA is messing with people's minds.

  22. Re:I don't play video games by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    This would never have happened at a Nintendo tournament.

  23. More guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure more guns would have fixed the issue.

  24. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Hey ratio, just asking do you think having guns illegal would have stopped this guy?

    Yes, he wouldn't have been able to shoot as many people with his Xbox One controller.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. Re:Can we finally admit? by nnet · · Score: 2

    you DO realize greed and avarice are human traits, not just american.

  26. Re:Can we finally admit? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good grief. The problem is mentally unstable people that parents, schools, and the judicial system seem to have no idea what to do with. A guy like this just doesn't suddenly get beat at a video game and at that moment start firing his gun at people. This is somebody who almost certainly has a long history of aggression issues. And honestly, what is the answer? Yes, the availability of guns in the US makes the likelihood of a gun as the weapon of choice go up, but the vehicle attacks that have happened all over the world demonstrate that someone sufficiently demented will find a way to kill and maim lots of people. Better mental health services is a start, but whether your country allows easy access to guns or doesn't (and some countries do and some countries don't), there's just a risk to being alive, that some nutcase is going to decide one day to go out killing, and, while statistically very unlikely, it is possible you may become a target.

    The fact is that despite the wider trauma that goes along with a mass shooting (whether this kind of spree killer or gang violence), most murder victims knew their attacker. I find it akin to the kind of hysteria that goes along with, say, serial child rapists, very scary, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of children subjected to sexual abuse are abused by a family member or a family friend or someone else close to them. In either case, something as mundane as a husband killing his wife or a child sexually abused by an uncle doesn't really make the news, and certainly not the national news, and yet those are the situations where violence is most prevalent. It's just that our monkey brains are actually rather poor at prioritizing risk. We'll freak out about the risks of terrorism or airplane crashes, when you're statistically far more likely to choke to death or slip in your bathtub, or really, to die of heart disease, but those aren't sexy enough stories to sell advertising.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  27. What kids need by myid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Kids should be taught to have a conscience.

    2) Kids should be taught self-control. (If you're angry, then count to 10 or 100 before you say anything. If you're losing control, then walk away so you don't hurt someone.)

    3) Kids need to see their parents acting ethically, and using self-control, as a good example.

    4) Kids should be taught that if you lose a game or a job or a girlfriend etc., then it's not the end of the world. Young people need to be told that; they haven't lived long enough to experience loss and recovery from loss.

    When they're extremely upset over something transient, they should be told, "A year from now, this won't matter. Five years from now, you won't even remember it. If you can't see this, then just trust me on this one." That's what my parents told me, and they were right. I remember them reassuring me with these words, but I don't remember what I was so upset about.

    5) I wonder if shooters like this grew up surrounded by crowding and/or constant loud music. I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.

    1. Re:What kids need by willy_me · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.

      I can. Rural environments, or at lest smaller communities, generally have higher cases of murder per person. (FYI, I am from northern BC, Canada.) And it is different from large cities where murder is often gang related and motivated by profit. In those small farming communities you get crime motivated by pure evil. Like the serial killer pig farmer in Abbotsford and whoever is killing the female hitchhikers along highway 16. I can not believe that having limited contact with people when growing up is a good thing. Some people are just broken. It is difficult to discover this fact and manage it when a child is growing up with limited human interaction.

      Someone should do a study to see how many of these shooters are an only child. In my experience, kids from large families are more balanced - I assume because of all the shit they went through growing up they learned to deal with their emotions. But I also know a guy from Alaska who didn't see another non-family human for the first 6 years of his life. He turned out great so who knows...

    2. Re:What kids need by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      5) I wonder if shooters like this grew up surrounded by crowding and/or constant loud music. I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.

      Right.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re:What kids need by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Kids last year and the year before that had people that went into a rage. This nostalgic notion of kids on swings looking up on clouds -- what, they valued life more back in the good old days? What kids need is not to have a kid with a real gun in the room. There are always going to be people falling into a rage and there will always be good and bad parents. We've had good parents with bad kids -- it happens.

      I mean is this complicated? A mass shooting requires a gun.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    4. Re: What kids need by houghi · · Score: 1

      When I look at the news, it is the adults who need it mire. People are doing ikkegal things without any consequences.
      Be it politicians, bankers or sportsters. And thise who are honest are labeld liers.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:What kids need by myid · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see you're going with the "rock music did it" angle.

      I was thinking about the stress of constant noise. I should have said loud noises, which includes loud music, heavy footsteps, doors banging, cars honking, and loud motorcycles. That kind of constant noise would drive me nuts.

      I love classical music, especially Beethoven. But there's no way I'd want classical music played constantly. I need peace and quiet.

      I'm not a psychologist, but I'd guess most people would get stressed out by 24x7 noise.

    6. Re:What kids need by johnsie · · Score: 1

      True dat. Aidensfield has a very high crime rate compared to many cities. And if Jessica Fletcher turns up you know someone is in big trouble.

    7. Re:What kids need by famebait · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.

      Let's all agree not to use your imagination, which unsurprisingly is just that, as the basis for shaping our policies on mental health, guns, or anything else.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    8. Re:What kids need by famebait · · Score: 1

      Maybe before trying to explain a correlation you should check if such a correlation actually exists?

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    9. Re:What kids need by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      1) Kids should be taught to have a conscience.

      2) Kids should be taught self-control. (If you're angry, then count to 10 or 100 before you say anything. If you're losing control, then walk away so you don't hurt someone.)

      3) Kids need to see their parents acting ethically, and using self-control, as a good example.

      4) Kids should be taught that if you lose a game or a job or a girlfriend etc., then it's not the end of the world. Young people need to be told that; they haven't lived long enough to experience loss and recovery from loss.

      When they're extremely upset over something transient, they should be told, "A year from now, this won't matter. Five years from now, you won't even remember it. If you can't see this, then just trust me on this one." That's what my parents told me, and they were right. I remember them reassuring me with these words, but I don't remember what I was so upset about.

      Honestly dudes just need to learn to express themselves emotional amongst each other without calling it gay. If he had shed a few tears he probably wouldn't have been so frustrated. They should just put on Inside Out before every super manly competition as just a reminder that feelings are okay that might help reduce this sort of aggression based violence that comes from not achieving. Telling them their feelings won't matter is just dismissing the problem. When it feels like you won't make it past the next minute being told about something in the next year isn't exactly helpful in teaching someone how to deal with it now.

      5) I wonder if shooters like this grew up surrounded by crowding and/or constant loud music. I can't imagine a kid who plays on swings, makes forts out of snow or cardboard boxes, and lies on his back looking at clouds, growing up to be a killer.

      Your imagination is wanting. There were killings before the advent of computers. almost as if computers aren't the problem.

      --
      Just another second banana
    10. Re:What kids need by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're talking about cake and then expect me do to maths?

      Where's the fucking cake!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re:What kids need by Radiophobic · · Score: 1

      I am sure a lot of maladjusted people look like they turned out great. Until you find out they didn't.

    12. Re:What kids need by proibido · · Score: 1

      Missed one point:

      6) Kids should not have access to guns

  28. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Ohh, you're playing the 'everyone I don't agree with is alt-right' card. You totally don't like like a ignorant ass at all.

  29. Nice Selective Statistic by skam240 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's great. Now if we didnt have the highest homicide rate of any first world nation by a very sizeable margin I might think you have a good point. But we do so you don't.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Nice Selective Statistic by guruevi · · Score: 1

      We don't. France, Netherlands and UK lead the pack via their Carribean Islands. Even if you take out many African and Carribean islands and purely look at countries with the top GDP in this world (which you mistakenly label first world). Canada, Mexico and Greenland comes in before the US.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  30. Re:come and take them. please. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    What a surprise, a right winger who the second gun control comes up starts slandering other people rather than having a civilized discussion on the topic.

    And what better time is there to talk about gun control then after a mass shooting? If a bunch of people burn to death in a building fire should we not be able to talk about fire safety?

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  31. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Oh? So the constitution has been revoked and all people with dissenting opinion have been locked up in FEMA camps? I didn't get that memo.

  32. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Hey, I didn't make the first post jackass. I merely responded to some leftist pile of shit that started screeching about guns before we even have solid reporting on what happened.

    It it is never appropriate to became talking about regulation before you even know what the hell happened. Be it about fires or firearms.

  33. Re:come and take them. please. by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good point. It would be better to a respectful period of time - say until the pain of loss has faded - to realize you therefore no longer have emotional motivation to fix the problem.

    Yeah, why would we want to take a level headed approach when we can just legislate from the hip on emotional appeal. We're guaranteed to have a great democracy that way

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  34. Re:come and take them. please. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Says the leftist troll that he himself started out with a statement stranding on the still warm bodes of the victims.

    Troll? No, friend. I honestly believe that increased gun regulation is sane. I'm not saying that to trigger you or anyone else. Further, I'm not standing on any bodies, warm or otherwise. I'm disregarding the regretful - but irrelevant bodies you're referencing. The only way they matter is that they should make you feel that something is wrong, and to seek ways to fix it.

    You are a perfect example of why I show abso-fucking-lutely zero respect for your kind.

    What precisely is "my" kind? Rational people? People who aren't inclined to support the status-quo that isn't working? Just curious.

    What in your diseased mind makes you think you deserve a respect when you started off with a generalized attack on an entire class of people?

    What class of people am I attacking? Pro-gun supporters? Look, I'll admit I do think that group are wrong, and fatally so. But I'm not attacking them. I'm encouraging them to get off their asses, and change their minds. To save lives. But in your narrative, I'm the bad guy. You know nobody's buying that, right?

    The answer is is that you don't deserve it, and you will never receive it.

    But more to a more cogent point: well the problem with your non-argument is that there is no real problem, not in the way assholes like you think there is. Mass shootings like this are so statistical rare as to be a non-issue. Yeah, they're terrible, but so are shark bites, Ebola, and Islamic attacks. If you lump every single death where a gun is involved you'll get about 30K a year, and if you just look at homicides you're only going to about 10K. All of these are terrible but they're a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.5 million people that will die every year from all causes. And even more to the point while 30K people might die with guns the best data we have from the federal government itself shows that roughly 300K people will use a gun in self defense every damn year.

    If you think I need to 'fix my shit' maybe you should educate yourself and learn about the reality of guns in America before you start beakin' off, lest you look like a retard in a public form.

    You know, aside from the abrasive, antisocial, combative, ignorant, rude, angry, dismissive, condescending things you wrote, there were also a few words. At great effort, I have located them and admit that deep in there you've got a point. It's a great point, much better than the One Handgun Per Child plan that seems be your vision for a safe country. That point seems to be: the American education system is broken.

    Let's see. Three hundred thousand people - per year - use a gun to "defend" themselves each year. That's one in every thousand citizens. Given that some Americans are children (let's imagine the age distribution is even up to 100 years old, which it's not), we can disregard say... 15% of your citizens. Given that some Americans are either elderly or disabled, we can probably chalk up another 15% to ignore. Then, let's estimate that maybe half of the remaining adults have guns, we arrive at 35% of your country being able to be included in your federal statistic. What just happened there is that we used reason, to come to the recognition that supposedly, one in three hundred gun-owners needs to "defend" himself every year.

    I ask you... what the actual fuck?

    See, in those countries other than America, where we lack guns to protect ourselves, if one in three hundred of us needs to "defend" ourselves every year, we'd be dead by now. Or homeless because all our stuff was stolen. But it doesn't work that way. The threat isn't present for us. The need-to-defend isn't present.

    So hey, I'd suggest you revisit your own arguments in the light that they're just... macho bullshit, and - again - go out and actually protect some people by advocating sanity, not pro-gun culture.

    --
    "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  35. Re:come and take them. please. by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah because the real problem here isn't the psychopathic asshole that wanted to hurt people just because he lost a videogame, its really all the fault of the tool he used.
    And making something illegal has already been proven to work so well to get rid of it. That's why America doesn't have a drug problem any more. Oh wait.
    Besides, wasn't the event already a gun-free zone? Maybe if more people were carrying he wouldn't have been so quick to go on a rampage in the first place, or they could at least have defended themselves and ended it quicker.
    You liberal morons make me laugh. You spent the last year and a half comparing Trump to Hitler at the same time you're begging him to take everyones guns away.

  36. Protection? Really? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    The principal fallacy that I am rather surprised that nobody calls out when the pro-gun shills start talking about protecting themselves, is that guns are protection. They are not shields, they don't 'protect' you in any way. ballistic vests are protection. Helmets are protection. Guns just give you a chance to engage in retaliatory violence on even footing. (Although even that is really questionable, since most people don't carry the same type of weapons that mass shooters do. I would feel pretty stupid if I got in a gunfight against a guy in level 3 body armor and carrying a fully automatic assault rifle while armed with a short barrel 9mm.)

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Protection? Really? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Actually, guns are used for protection hundreds of thousands of times a year in the US, almost always without firing a shot, and virtually never in the "gunfight" scenario you're fantasizing about. Your blathering on the subject has no relationship to reality.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Protection? Really? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      ... most people don't carry the same type of weapons that mass shooters do. I would feel pretty stupid if I got in a gunfight against a guy in level 3 body armor and carrying a fully automatic assault rifle while armed with a short barrel 9mm.)

      I must have missed something. Since North Hollywood in 97, how many or what percentage of mass shootings have been committed with a fully-automatic weapon?

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    3. Re:Protection? Really? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      ... most people don't carry the same type of weapons that mass shooters do. I would feel pretty stupid if I got in a gunfight against a guy in level 3 body armor and carrying a fully automatic assault rifle while armed with a short barrel 9mm.)

      I must have missed something. Since North Hollywood in 97, how many or what percentage of mass shootings have been committed with a fully-automatic weapon?

      Does it matter? He's not describing a real situation he's faced, It's hypothetical using with a contrived situation to demonstrate as much contrast between a "short barrel 9mm" and some much more powerful weapon. In your mind, feel free to substitute with any weapon more powerful than a short barrel 9mm if it makes you feel better and the point still stands -- the mass-shooter is likely to arrive much better prepared (and planned) than bystanders.

    4. Re:Protection? Really? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Their idea of protection mostly involves brandishing a gun against an unarmed person and counting it as 'self defense'. Hell, in florida you can even start fights and shoot the other (unarmed) person and it counts as DGU.

      Guns are only useful for defensive purposes when you are armed and the other person is not, which has always been the goal of the pro-gun crowd, esp the open carry people.

    5. Re:Protection? Really? by Chas · · Score: 1

      So you completely reject the concept of deterrence?

      The fact is, a shot that is never fired is a shot avoided.

      And even a guy in level 3 armor with a helmet and an automatic assault rifle is going to be too busy flopping around on the ground if you happen to shoot him in the face.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:Protection? Really? by Chas · · Score: 1

      But! But!

      How are you supposed to win a firefight when the other guy is standing behind a 6 inch steel plate and firing a minigun, and all you have is a slingshot without a rock?

      Good point!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  37. Re:come and take them. please. by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I Say this as a Brit myself:
    When I see British citizens mocking the USA I just remember that in 100 years or so, we went from ruling 25% of the world to living on an island the size of Michigan. I've never been more happy that 15 years ago I decided to emigrate to the USA. I look at the pussy liberal culture in the UK that was emerging even then and see how it has now driven the entire country into the ground and made everyone scared to even admit to having testicles. The entire country has totally become a handout culture, and now the peecee agenda is enabling a mass of immigrants to turn into an Islamic state. If that's your idea of a "civilized" country you can stick it.

  38. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Gun culture is incredibly polite and full of good people who have respect for themselves and others.

    Oh yeah. Here's one of your "incredibly polite" good people who have respect for themselves and others:

    https://nypost.com/2018/05/09/...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  39. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    You're being dishonest. I don't carry guns and never will but these lone shooters don't represent so-called "gun culture" by definition.

    Actually, the "lone shooter" is very precisely the representative of gun culture in the United States. That is the very image that the NRA must promote in order to get people to buy more guns, which is goal at the very heart of "gun culture".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  40. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Add it to the list of minority cultures that government targets for oppression and bullying.

    I'd like to think bullying and oppressing minority cultures would be universally frowned upon, but instead many people cheerlead for bullying and oppression when they identify a particular culture as "the other".

    Some of us would like the bullying and oppression of "out group" cultures to end.

    Yes, by all means, let's add "mass shooters" to the list of people being oppressed by government.

    I'm telling you, just read the pro-gun comments here to see just how sick gun culture really is.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  41. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Why not take it one step further and make murder illegal? Then he wouldn't have been able to murder at all.

    If making something illegal doesn't make less of it, then why do so-called "Christian conservatives" want to make abortion illegal? Why have any laws at all?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  42. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    That's like saying ADT is "promoting" the image of the burglar.

    Nobody uses their home security system to go murder a bunch of kids.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  43. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Well all I can say to that is 'good luck'. I watch a fair amount of news coverage from a lot of English speaking nations, one thing I've seen is how damn authoritarian the British government is when it comes to people that try to defend themselves. Almost as if they take some sick pleasure in going after a citizen that stands up for themselves instead of doing the hard work of preventing the crimes that the original person was trying to defense themselves against.

    And don't even get me started about that god damn Telford situation. If there was ever an argument for completely terminating and re-staffing an entire police force that would be it.

  44. Re:come and take them. please. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Well if you RTFS it turns out a person shot a ton of other people. It pretty much sounds like almost every other mass shooting we've ever had. Sure, it might turn out to be terrorists or something but as of when this article went up on slashdot that was seeming pretty unlikely.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  45. Re:Yeah, no need to fear Lenin at all... davai cea by skam240 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nice, can't beat'em so call them Russian. A sure sign of a strong intellect.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  46. Re:come and take them. please. by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Yes, by all means, let's add "mass shooters" to the list of people being oppressed by government.

    I'm telling you, just read the pro-gun comments here to see just how sick gun culture really is.

    Gun owners aren't guilty of mass shootings, just like Muslims aren't guilty of terrorist attacks and gays aren't guilty of molesting children. Blaming innocent members of a minority culture for the crimes of others is probably the most common argument bigots make. You should stop blaming innocent people for others' crimes like that.

  47. NRA by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Politics aside, the NRA does some positive activities. Supports shooting ranges / gun safety and affordable insurance. The insurance aspect is interesting since could be an area to couple with other insurance such as liability and health.

    1. Re:NRA by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

      Politics aside, the NRA does some positive activities. Supports shooting ranges / gun safety and affordable insurance. The insurance aspect is interesting since could be an area to couple with other insurance such as liability and health.

      That's like saying PETA does some good things by making vegan recipe books while ignoring the fact that they are a barely contained domestic terror organization. The NRA is a racist gun organization that doesn't listen to logic and is demonstrably inconsistent.

      --
      Just another second banana
    2. Re:NRA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's like saying PETA does some good things by making vegan recipe books while ignoring the fact that they are a barely contained domestic terror organization. The NRA is a racist gun organization that doesn't listen to logic and is demonstrably inconsistent.

      The ACLU could destroy the NRA overnight by choosing to support the second amendment in a sane way, and by offering range insurance. There's no shortage of people who only joined the NRA to get the insurance, because they are prohibited from joining their local range without it. Once they join the NRA, they are then subjected to NRA propaganda which may have the effect of radicalizing them. The ACLU has permitted the NRA to exist, by refusing to support the entire bill of rights.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:NRA by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Politics aside, the NRA does some positive activities. Supports shooting ranges / gun safety and affordable insurance. The insurance aspect is interesting since could be an area to couple with other insurance such as liability and health.

      That's like saying PETA does some good things by making vegan recipe books while ignoring the fact that they are a barely contained domestic terror organization. The NRA is a racist gun organization that doesn't listen to logic and is demonstrably inconsistent.

      No, it isn't like saying that. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

      I've been an NRA member for about 40 years. There is no hate taught there. Only respect. Not even a hint of hate. I've seen probably every race, ethnicity, etc at the range. As long as you follow the range rules that everyone has to follow, no problem.

      The NRA isn't racist. That's a leftist smear. In fact the NRA was put in place to help black people because the leftists were trying to disarm them. Before moding me down, look it up - The Jim Crowe laws, the KKK, the Democrats. So just keep in mind that by wanting gun control, you're racist.

  48. Re:Islamic state? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's you that should stop watching MSNBC.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/po...

  49. Re:Can we finally admit? by skam240 · · Score: 1

    " Yes, the availability of guns in the US makes the likelihood of a gun as the weapon of choice go up, but the vehicle attacks that have happened all over the world demonstrate that someone sufficiently demented will find a way to kill and maim lots of people. "

    If we had a similar homicide rate to other first world countries you'd have a good point. The problem is that we have a homicide rate several times higher then the next closest first world countries. Clearly people aren't finding other good ways to kill each other.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  50. Re:come and take them. please. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Ha. After having been to that country about a half dozen times I feel like I can say I'm sure they were happy to see you go.

    Also, the dismantling of a colonial empire to allow the formally subjugated to rule themselves is not a bad thing. In fact, a people's inherent natural right to self rule is why we revolted.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  51. Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Yeah because the real problem here isn't the psychopathic asshole that wanted to hurt people just because he lost a videogame, its really all the fault of the tool he used.
    And making something illegal has already been proven to work so well to get rid of it."

    First world countries with stricter gun control laws then us universally have homicide rates 4-5 times less than ours ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) so yes, in this case limiting the tool does seem to do an awful lot of good.

    You conservative morons make me laugh. You refuse to look at real life things that work extremely well in almost every other first world nation like gun control or socialized medicine (as a country we pay twice or more percapita for our health care relative to any other country with socialized medicine) because it disagrees with your ideology.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Right back at ya by kaoshin · · Score: 3
    2. Re:Right back at ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Fact: The number of mass homicides and the number of people killed in mass homicides in Australia has gone up since the gun control initiatives of the mid 1990s.

      Nope!

    3. Re: Right back at ya by kaoshin · · Score: 2

      The effect in Australia is still being debated by scholars who see it both ways, but there are numerous other more powerful examples as noted.

    4. Re:Right back at ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Other countries such as the UK used to have much freer access to guns and still had about 1/4 the murder rate of the USA.

      The idea that other countries have lower murder rates because of their gun laws is unsupported by facts.

    5. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, the only "liberal health care solution" we've tried in this country is one first proposed by large numbers of significant conservatives in the 90's. More people have healthcare under the Affirmative Care Act (which is what I'm assuming you're alluding to) which is certainly a good thing but it completely fails to address our systems under-riding problems, the biggest of which is that our system is now and was before, massively too expensive relative to what countries with socialized medicine get for half the money.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    6. Re:Right back at ya by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You conservative morons make me laugh. You refuse to look at real life things that work extremely well in almost every other first world nation like gun control or socialized medicine

      Well, I'm not a conservative, I'm completely in favor of socialized medicine. However, I'm concerned about federal gun control, because the federal government has demonstrated that it will abuse such abilities. It's really the kind of thing which should be handled by states — even they abuse such abilities. For example, the whole point of the 2a is to keep military weapons in civilian hands, but California has repeatedly banned weapons which look like military weapons, and prohibits carry almost completely. Occasionally, there's a sheriff in some isolated Californian county who will give permits to private individuals, usually with a business justification, but they issue very few permits. Meanwhile, Feinstein had no trouble getting a permit for a purse gun — while carrying a gun in a purse is just begging for it to be stolen, and subsequently used in a crime.

      The right to keep and bear arms should not be seen as a conservative value. The purpose of the 2a is to keep government under check. That's a very liberal thing to do.

      I am not against gun control, but I am against putting creeps like Trump and Pence in charge of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I do consider your point here of what is basically "fear of government" as a legitimate point against increased gun control. It's a sediment voiced by many of the founding fathers and is generally recognized by people knowledgeable on the subject as the real reason for the second amendment. The part that's hard is which is worth more, our safety from each other or from our government and people are just going to come to different conclusions on that. Personally, given that I feel that first world Democracies so far have a fairly high success rate in terms of not sliding into authoritarianism, I'd rather have laws that defend society against the devil we know then the one that might never exist.

      I do feel though that leaving the issue to the states would work out just as well as other regional bans like DC's, which is to say not well at all. Our states all have completely open boarders so guns will just come right on over from the nearest state with looser laws.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    8. Re:Right back at ya by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      First world countries with stricter gun control laws then us universally have homicide rates 4-5 times less than ours

      Apples and oranges. Correlation is not causation. Even 4-5 times more of remarkably rare is still rare. Other first world countries are also much more homogeneous. The largest contributor to the higher homicide rate in the US are black males. Comparing similar demographics to similar backgrounds yields similar homicide rates. Homicide rates in states that have laxer gun laws are low as compared to states/cities with stronger gun laws. You cannot use prevalence of guns (or the associated laws) as a predictor of higher rates of homicide anywhere because it doesn't match. Defensive gun use in the US dwarf the number used illicitly.

      in this case limiting the tool does seem to do an awful lot of good.

      Then why is London becoming more violent than NYC? What is the logical conclusion of banning guns? Banning knives? Even this isn't as straight forward as you make it seem because there are other factors that can predict violence better than the prevalence of a tool. A tool does not address any of the reasons why that tool was used.

    9. Re:Right back at ya by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I am sure that site is "fair and balanced".

      The "Time Cube" inspired website design really nails it home too.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world. That's the fact hidden, and purposely ignored by gun grabbers, in the average homicide rate folks like to trot out. Those of us who live outside of those few dozen square miles of the US don't want, or need, any of the idiotic gun control laws that routinely get trotted out as "solutions" to gun related homicide. Drug gang violence is what you should start looking at if you want to solve the vast majority of our gun homicide problem. But then you would have to actually want to solve the violence problem, not just use an out of context statistic as justification to take peoples guns away.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    11. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Apples and oranges"

      Do you not understand what that phrase means? When comparing us to other countries on social issues the social sciences universally regard other first world countries as generally the best candidates as they are the most like us. There is little to no debate about this among people who are well educated and in the social sciences,

      " Correlation is not causation."

      Wow, thanks for that bit of insight-fullness. A high degree of correlation does strongly suggest causation though.

      "Even 4-5 times more of remarkably rare is still rare."

      Sure and no one is saying you have violence like some third world nations but it also means that there is a major problem given that every other first world nation experiences such a drastically lower rate. It's not as if we happen to be top of the list by .1% percapita. We're multiple full percentage points higher. Those percentage points add up to a shit ton of dead people.

      " Homicide rates in states that have laxer gun laws are low as compared to states/cities with stronger gun laws."

      Stricter gun laws in this country aren't that much different from the lax ones. Lax or strict they still allow for the mass ownership of most guns so comparing among US states will of course yield similar results. Furthermore, we have no real borders in this country so regional gun laws just aren't going to effect gun violence rates all that much.

      "Then why is London becoming more violent than NYC?"

      Congratulations, you can name one city in a country that has had strict gun control for over half a century that is recently having a spike in violence. These spikes happen in major urban areas.

      " seem because there are other factors that can predict violence better than the prevalence of a tool. "

      By comparing among first world nations pretty much all the major causes of violence in society that the social sciences recognize like poverty and the like are controlled for by default because first world nations are similar societies in these contexts. Guns really do stand out as a glaring issue when looking at the data.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    12. Re:Right back at ya by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I am sure that site is "fair and balanced".
      The "Time Cube" inspired website design really nails it home too.

      Do you have any excuses for not reading what the site says which don't boil down to Ad Hominem? Do you immediately believe what a site which supports your argument says if it was paid for by people who agree with you?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Jesus, I can't believe you just said that. You just told me that if we cherry pick our data then we look great. Of course that's the fucking case. If you did that with any country you could make them look light years better.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    14. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      Jesus, I can't believe you just said that. You just told me that if we cherry pick our data then we look great. Of course that's the fucking case. If you did that with any country you could make them look light years better.

      No cherry picking at all. I referenced ALL the data not just the "average" which would be cherry picking seeing how the average misrepresents the vast majority of the country and the hell holes where the homicide rate is 10 times the average. The point is that guns aren't the problem else the homicide rate in all the rest of the country would be high as well. Fix the real problem. Drug gang violence. Or leave those worst affected by the violence to suffer and continue to push gun control.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    15. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Every country is like that. The United States is not some crazy anomaly in how our violent crime is proportioned.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    16. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      Every country is like that. The United States is not some crazy anomaly in how our violent crime is proportioned.

      Then let's concentrate our efforts on those areas and the real problem, gang violence, and leave me and my guns alone.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    17. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Or how about we implement the solution the rest of the first world has successfully done rather than struggle with complex issues that the first world has yet to figure out solutions to?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    18. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      Or how about we implement the solution the rest of the first world has successfully done rather than struggle with complex issues that the first world has yet to figure out solutions to?

      Why are things so bad in Detroit but not in Austin TX or Chandler AZ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Detroit has stricter gun laws than Austin or Chandler. It doesn't seem to me that the "solution" that the rest of the first (cherry picked) world has implemented is working in Detroit. Plenty of second and third world countries have extremely restrictive gun laws and have homicide rates much higher than the US. Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider. Let's help the people who need it the most first even if it means recognizing that guns are not the problem. That seems unlikely to happen though.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    19. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      " Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider."

      The problem is that when we compare averages for first world nations to other first world nations we are doing so as a means to control for the typical major factors for crime and violence in society. This is the reason why we don't use third world countries in comparisons on this issue because it's not comparing apples to apples. When we compare among first world nation we are accommodating just about all of the known major reasons for variance by default. The typical variables that explain crime rates throughout the world can't explain America's homicide or gun violence rates, as a first world nation we shouldn't be having these problems. We should have solved them for ourselves by now.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    20. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      " Just maybe there is another overriding factor, or factors, we need to consider."

      The problem is that when we compare averages for first world nations to other first world nations we are doing so as a means to control for the typical major factors for crime and violence in society. This is the reason why we don't use third world countries in comparisons on this issue because it's not comparing apples to apples. When we compare among first world nation we are accommodating just about all of the known major reasons for variance by default. The typical variables that explain crime rates throughout the world can't explain America's homicide or gun violence rates, as a first world nation we shouldn't be having these problems. We should have solved them for ourselves by now.

      I agree we shouldn't be having this problem. Comparing averages is our first mistake. We have data right in front of our eyes, Chandler v.s Chicago, and many others we can look at and see where things are going wrong. If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths) are driving our overall homicide rates above those of the developed world then we won't solve the problem of a high average homicide rate vs. the first world. If we just say, well most homicides are committed with guns so they must be causing the problem, then we won't solve the problem. Unless private ownership of guns is the real "problem" one wants to solve. Then our high homicide rate is useful and efforts to reduce it counterproductive to that end.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    21. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities"

      Most other first world nations have this problem around as bad as us. This is yet another thing controlled for by comparing amount first world nations.

      " and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths)"

      So suicide is not a problem? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all weak. If American's are more likely and/or more successful at committing suicide with guns then that is yet another problem with our country's mass ownership of firearms.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    22. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      "If we don't want to confront the uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities"

      Most other first world nations have this problem around as bad as us. This is yet another thing controlled for by comparing amount first world nations.

      " and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths)"

      So suicide is not a problem? That's the stupidest thing I've heard all weak. If American's are more likely and/or more successful at committing suicide with guns then that is yet another problem with our country's mass ownership of firearms.

      I said " uncomfortable truth that drug related gang violence in the inner cities and suicide (2/3 of gun related deaths) are driving our overall homicide rates" so I obviously think it's a problem. Are guns causing suicide? Ask the folks in Japan. Sounds like you aren't willing to look for the root causes and actually solve these problems. If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    23. Re:Right back at ya by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results."

      You're ignoring the mountain of correlating evidence that less guns equals less gun violence, less murders (even if you take out suicides for the US and leave them in every other countries numbers our homicide rate would still be about 2.5 times the first world average), and less suicide. Strong correlation strongly suggests causation.

      "Ask the folks in Japan."

      You mean the country that has a homicide rate that is about 25 times less than ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . After looking at this clearly your "suicide makes up a massive portion of American gun violence" seems like it's full of shit.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    24. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      "If you think we can solve gun violence the same way we're "solving" drug overdose related deaths, by banning drugs and spending billions of dollars on a "war" on them, then you should prepare for same the results."

      You're ignoring the mountain of correlating evidence that less guns equals less gun violence, less murders (even if you take out suicides for the US and leave them in every other countries numbers our homicide rate would still be about 2.5 times the first world average), and less suicide. Strong correlation strongly suggests causation.

      "Ask the folks in Japan."

      You mean the country that has a homicide rate that is about 25 times less than ours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . After looking at this clearly your "suicide makes up a massive portion of American gun violence" seems like it's full of shit.

      So the fact that 2/3 of gun related deaths are suicide in the US seems like it's full of shit? To who? Japan has high rate of suicide vs. low gun ownership...US has high suicide rate vs. high gun ownership. No correlation. Chandler's low homicide rate vs. Detroit's (100 times higher). No correlation. New Hampshire vs. Louisiana (10 times higher). No correlation. So let's only look at averages with the assumption of "first world only". Instead let's look at why people in certain small geographical locations in the US kill each other at such high rates and look for a root cause to that violence. When we do look closer we see young black males killing each other at horrific rates. Why is that happening and why won't we do anything about it? My answer...it creates an average statistic useful for pushing gun control and recognizing it would reflect poorly on the politicians in control of those areas.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    25. Re:Right back at ya by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      No he's telling you to look at the actual data and not paint everyone with the same broad brush. Two concepts that liberals/democrats have never been good at grasping.

    26. Re:Right back at ya by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Wait so your actual argument is "lets not think or analyse the actual problem, we should just mindlessly copy everyone else"? Wow. That's the most braindead anti-gun argument I've heard yet.

    27. Re:Right back at ya by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > first world Democracies so far have a fairly high success rate in terms of not sliding into authoritarianism

      As a Brit now living in the US I would have to disagree with you on that. I can first =hand tell you that the UK and nearly all of the EU is a complete nanny state.

    28. Re:Right back at ya by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      > what is basically "fear of government"

      You got that round the wrong way. The government need to fear us.

    29. Re:Right back at ya by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world. That's the fact hidden, and purposely ignored by gun grabbers, in the average homicide rate folks like to trot out. Those of us who live outside of those few dozen square miles of the US don't want, or need, any of the idiotic gun control laws that routinely get trotted out as "solutions" to gun related homicide. Drug gang violence is what you should start looking at if you want to solve the vast majority of our gun homicide problem. But then you would have to actually want to solve the violence problem, not just use an out of context statistic as justification to take peoples guns away.

      Really? Outside of the top eight cities the homicide rate is low in the USA?

      To pick a place without a big city, Missouri seems to have a gun homicide rate of about 6.9 per 100,000 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      That is multiple times the UK or Canadian rate according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Oh, that was all homicides. If we want gun deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which gives Canada a rate of 2.1 and the UK a rate of 0.23 for 100,000 Wow, time to move to the UK if you worry about being shot!

    30. Re:Right back at ya by doradox · · Score: 1

      St. Louis is number 1 for murder on this list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I suspect that has just a little something to do with that 6.9/100,000 for the state. But that's just me. And the stats.

      --
      If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
    31. Re:Right back at ya by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Whoops, bad pick! My US geography and knowledge of where the big gun murder places are is not so great. I figured if I just went down the state list and picked something a few down the list it would show that absent the top eight cities the US still had a pretty high gun murder rate.

      So lets get extreme. You said "Remove small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities and the US homicide rate drops to one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world."

      Yet, the linked Wikipedia statistics show Canada has a gun homicide rate of 0.61 deaths per 100,000 (with overall gun deaths of 2.05 per 100,000) while the UK has a gun homicide rate of 0.06 deaths per 100,000 (with overall gun deaths of 0.23 per 100,000), and Canada is pretty high on the list, there are a lot that have lower rates (the UK does seem to have among the lowest rates).

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

      Out of all the sates, only four (and Florida has no data listed) seem to have gun homicide rates lower than Canada, and none are lower than the UK. How would omitting the 8 worst cities manage to drop the statistics in more than forty states? It doesn't seem like omitting these areas would drop the country average to "one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the world."

      When I do some simple web searched to look for data supporting your statements, I mostly come up with articles that seems to broadly counter it - for example this seems to indicate the gangs make up somewhere between 10 and 25% of gun deaths https://www.huffingtonpost.com... according to data from the federal National Gang Center and this https://www.vox.com/policy-and... has similar information.

      If you have a reference that supports your statement that removing "small geographical areas in just 6-8 of our largest cities" makes a huge difference in the US ranking in country homicide rates, I would be interested to see it, because it doesn't match up with how I interpret the data that I have seen.

      Of course, my data might be total crap and maybe the US is unique among developed countries with all of the bad stuff able to be blamed on those inner city gang bangers. If other places also had similar percentages of their bad stuff being done by the gangs, then absent the gangs, their numbers would drop too.

  52. Re:i get it. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    No, I want to regulate ACTIONS by not encouraging people to act on murderous thoughts. Why glorify mass murder?

  53. Re:come and take them. please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    By your logic, every jihadi attack was committed by a muslim, therefore all muslims are guilty of jihadi attacks. Check your emotion, it blocks logical thinking.

  54. Re:YAAWG by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    So you really think it's better to murder people than being weaponless?

    No, it's better to be able to defend yourself than to not be able to defend yourself. Law abiding people in the US use legally owned firearms for self defense (almost entirely without having to fire a shot) orders of magnitude more often than criminals use guns to murder anybody. You really can't grasp that being stripped of your right to self defense and being a murderer aren't the only two possibilities?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  55. Re:Can we finally admit? by quenda · · Score: 1

    The problem is that we have a homicide rate several times higher then the next closest first world countries.

    Looking at the numbers, the elephant in the room as the biggest factor is race, not guns.

    If you do a more fair comparison, the homicide rates of whites in the US to other developed countries, the difference is much less, but the US whites (males of course) have "only" double the homicide rate.

    Bear in mind that in all cases, random mass-killing by assault rifle, truck, or any weapon, make up only a tiny proportion of homicides.
    So the "vehicle attack" argument is almost irrelevant to the broader question of gun homicide.

  56. That escalated quickly. by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guns don't cause violence, but they do escalate it once someone decides to go that route.

    It is notable that Brazil has strict gun control laws, which it actually enforces, yet it has a murder rate per capita that is ten times that of the U.S. It also has a major problem with "leaked" guns -- many of which are coming from the police. Clearly the cause of their problem is systemic, but maybe ours is too.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:That escalated quickly. by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      I think the problem is cultural. Americans glorify violence and generally avoid talking about other forms of conflict resolution. There aren't many movies where the bad guy isn't killed or at least beaten up.

    2. Re:That escalated quickly. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Clearly the cause of their problem is systemic, but maybe ours is too.

      Their problem and ours have a common cause, wealth inequality causing people to have unmet needs. They have greater inequality, and more people have more unmet needs, so they have a greater problem. But do not make a mistake, they are the same problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:That escalated quickly. by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Guns don't cause violence, but they do escalate it once someone decides to go that route.

      People kill people... and people with guns kill many, many more people than those without them.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    4. Re:That escalated quickly. by samwichse · · Score: 1

      As always, The Onion is relevant:

      https://local.theonion.com/man...

    5. Re:That escalated quickly. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      People generally kill other people one or two at a time, with or without guns. The totals of those homicides are far higher than all the mass shootings put together.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  57. Re:Can we finally admit? by skam240 · · Score: 1

    "Looking at the numbers, the elephant in the room as the biggest factor is race, not guns.

    If you do a more fair comparison, the homicide rates of whites in the US to other developed countries, the difference is much less, but the US whites (males of course) have "only" double the homicide rate.""

    No, it's not race it's poverty. Non-whites are far more likely to live in poverty in this country and the fact that poverty breeds crime is about as close as you get to a sociological fact. This is why you generally don't compare third world to first on crime statistics, the large poverty driven crime skew makes any comparison useless.

    There is no magic "crime gene" that makes non-whites more crime prone in this country.

    "Bear in mind that in all cases, random mass-killing by assault rifle, truck, or any weapon, make up only a tiny proportion of homicides.
    So the "vehicle attack" argument is almost irrelevant to the broader question of gun homicide."

    I have no idea what you are getting at here.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  58. Re:come and take them. please. by Jodka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gun culture is sick culture.

    My father attended grade school in rural Maryland in the 1950's. The boys in his class brought their rifles to school in the morning so that they could hunt squirrels on the walk home from school. That was typical in rural America during that era. Fathers judged when boys were mature enough to handle a gun and taught them gun safety and shooting skills. Hunting and shooting were social and communal. There were very few fatalities from rural grade school shootings in the decade of the 1950's, despite the common practice of allowing students to bring guns to schools. Some schools had shooting clubs. Rural American was safe because it had a healthy gun culture.

    Gun culture is about advocating and practicing responsibility and safety. Can you name any mass shooting carried out by an NRA class instructor or a competitive shooter? Are the U.S. Olympic shooting teams "sick?" What about those in the armed forces? Someone is willing to risk his life at war for his country and you describe his affinity for the weapons used to perform his job as "sick?"

    Study the biographies of those who commit mass shootings. They are not part of gun culture, but usually loners with histories of anti-social behavior.

    Where do members of gun culture congregate? At shooting ranges. If gun culture is sick, then where are the mass shootings at ranges??

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  59. Madden players = aggressive taunters by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    Many online Madden players engage in negative aggressive play and taunting of opponents. It is not about winning. Itâ(TM)s about dominating and humiliating your opponent. Watch YouTube videos where this event is promoted. You will see players overcome with emotion screaming at the top of their lungs. What would drive someone to shoot up a place after losing a video game? I am sad this happened but not surprised.

  60. Online play: a cesspool of bad behavior by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    Platforms and publishers need to do a much better job for online games. Online play is a cesspool of aggressive players who want to humiliate and dominate their opponent. It is not about winning. Gave up on Madden years ago. Opponents run the same glitching money plays, never punt, and go for two poInt plays to run up the score. The movement to make Madden an e-Sport is a shift away from casual gamers towards to aggressive players. I would encourage gamers to not buy a product that tolerates aggressive poor behavior by players.

  61. Narcissistic Injury by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    This is a good example of what happens when an entitled disordered personality gets their hands on a weapon and perceives a slight against their egoic self. Since their own internal dialogue is already oriented around complete self destruction the best way for them to commit suicide is to get the police to do it for them, whilst taking those who inflicted the perceived injury with them.

    This is because if they were to just commit suicide there would be no notoriety and attention from their actions. I counted the discharges and it sounded like a hand gun with a nine round magazine, a reload with a fresh magazine, then another 3 shots. More than likely the shooter pre-meditated a variety of scenarios where this *could* occur otherwise why bring a loaded firearm with a spare magazine? I doubt it was a rifle of some description.

    This is the danger of Narcissistic Personality Disorder when it is hovering just below the the threshold of becoming Anti-social Personality Disorder. Those people walk around life always looking for ways to create destruction for everyone and looking at this guys eyes and face in the picture he just reeks of someone who can't sleep at night because his own unconscious self is barraging him with thoughts of what a loser he is. More so look at the facial expression of the Bills player - this is someone with enough social intelligence to pick up that there is something wrong with this kid. I know this is after the fact however it is possible to tell all this from a photo.

    So when he lost at the one thing where he thought it was his domain, it pushed him over the edge he knew he was precariously resting on. The thing you can't obviously see is he was looking for a scenario to generate the worst possible outcome so that a notorious death was the one thing he could do so that people would pay attention, after all killing himself means nothing, killing others in the process confirms his own self destructive nature.

    How do I see this? I have been writing a book on this subject because it is a common problem that generally only manifests as psychological abuse. At 24 he didn't have enough social experience to defend himself from the perception of the abuse repeated from his childhood nor the impulse control to stop his own destructive nature manifesting.

    Yes, you can blame the parents too. At least one was abusive and the other enabled the abuse, possibly tried to compensate and they projected their own toxicity into this kid, from which they will draw their own supply for the rest of their lives. I'm going to predict, he was probably a quiet kid, didn't make much trouble, no one really noticed him. Never had a criminal record, no history of violence, very few friends, probably all on line.

    This, I feel, is the core issue with the weapons violence in the US, it is a manifestation of mental health issues like these. Start fixing the mental health issues and you will see a reduction in gun violence.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Narcissistic Injury by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Just like McSkillet

      Good call Mr AC - just like McSkillet.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Narcissistic Injury by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Good call Mr AC - just like McSkillet.

      McSkillet actually did have the rug of success yanked out from under him. Statistically speaking, he wasn't likely to ever make that kind of money again. Losing the income you've grown accustomed to is well known to send some people over the edge, quite literally (see the great depression). It's not exactly the same thing as flipping out and shooting up the place because you lost a video game.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    3. Re:Narcissistic Injury by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      More than likely the shooter pre-meditated a variety of scenarios where this *could* occur otherwise why bring a loaded firearm with a spare magazine?

      While you're making a valid point, the fact is that there's no good reason not to bring a second magazine with you if you're carrying. Since I live in California, in fact, I have a double magazine carrier so that I can carry two additional mags, since my pistol only holds 8+1 maximum. I would have bought a 9mm which holds more like 14+1, and only provisioned to carry one spare mag, but we're not allowed those in this state. My pistol has a flared magwell and a trivially-accessed ejection mechanism, so I can slam in a new mag in basically no time; therefore, this legislation accomplished nothing other than selling me a more expensive pistol and an additional magazine, meaning more profit for gun companies. Winning?

      For those who may be concerned, I have literally never carried my pistol on public property, except in a locked box where it is stored when not in use. I bought it for the purpose of managing a specific threat which has since dissipated, and I keep it in case of emergency. If things go all pear-shaped, I want to be among the armed.

      So when he lost at the one thing where he thought it was his domain, it pushed him over the edge he knew he was precariously resting on.

      This is why our culture of competition and lack of a social safety net is what is driving our violence problem. Everyone is living precariously. The wealthy leverage their wealth to become more wealthy even though they have more than they can use, and risk failure. The poor have no wealth to leverage, and live paycheck to paycheck, crumb to crumb. The middle class is dwindling, and rapidly becoming more of the poor.

      UBI now. National health now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Narcissistic Injury by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but it has to be a kind of mental health issues resolution that is unlike what we usually do. Most times mental health issues are "push pills." We've got to get a handle on real mental health issues and resolve it with therapy rather than turning (more) people into zombies. If we have a problem with this kind of violence - and we do, despite the fact that violence numbers are DOWN significantly since the 1970s, we still have one, we need the will to resolve it. And I'm afraid we don't have it.

  62. Re:Can we finally admit? by quenda · · Score: 1

    No, it's not race it's poverty. Non-whites are far more likely to live in poverty in this country and

    First, I'm talking about the differences in homicide rates between developed countries, and the statistical correlates, not absolute causes.
    I was not touching the subject of why blacks have higher homicide rates. It matters for the sake of comparison only that they do.
    Poverty is certainly a factor. However, in the case of the United States, poor non-blacks still have much lower homicide rates than poor blacks.

    the fact that poverty breeds crime is about as close as you get to a sociological fact.

    Inequality, not absolute poverty. Plenty of countries have high poverty and low crime.

    What about Mozambique? Sub-Saharan Africa, much deeper poverty than any US inner city, lots of guns still around since the civil war ended. And it has a homicide rate lower than the U.S. Nobody is suggesting there is a simple answer to the whole problem.

    There is no magic "crime gene" that makes non-whites more crime prone in this country.

    No kidding. That is a silly comment. Most heritable traits are polygenic - including height, IQ, aggression, impulsiveness.
        Do you think the high crime difference between men and women is 100% cultural and not due to biological differences?

  63. Of COURSE the left will make this about "guns" by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For one thing he "broke the law"...this was a gun free zone. See how stupid THAT is? Then, the next thing, you will find this lDIOT was: a loner, no social skills, anti social, keeps to himself, few friends, an outsider, quick temper and on and on. But no...let's just make this about guns, how evil they are, how we need to have a serious conversation, rub our hands together, and have a few candle light protests. This kid, from what I have found, won last year, became upset because he lost, blamed someone else, then got mad, went out and got his gun. You can bet if he didn't have the gun, he probably would have used his car. I'll bet, once the smoke clears, you'll find he's another kid that was raised that he can't do anything wrong, coddled by his parents, given participation trophies his entire life, never told no, got into video games at a young age, stayed to himself. Once things unraveled, he couldn't handle it. No, this was not about the gun, the gun was just the tool. Had it not been available, and had some people been able to LEGALLY carry into this place their weapon, perhaps this would not happen. He probably would have used his car, bat, club or something else. Another spoiled brat, that took his own life because he couldn't "man up" and accept responsibility.

  64. Statistics by e3m4n · · Score: 2

    So for over a decade there has been the argument that violent video games make people more violent. And tons of arguments for or against. However, I want to use existing arguments to point out something equally stupid; if you do not mind. Yes, I am hijacking this thread.

    For over 7 decades the US government and the DEA have been calling cannabis a 'Gateway drug'. Why? Not because of any scientific research, but pure statistics.
    An overwhelming majority of heavy users of drugs like heroin, admit to using 'marijuana' at some point in time. So these people jumped to the conclusion that cannabis is a gateway drug. Following that logic, why isnt alcohol, cigarettes, or coffee also a gateway drug because 100% of heroin users also used these as well.

    So lets use this same, already government sanctioned, presence. If 100% of these mass shooters also admitted to playing video games, should we label video games as a 'gateway' to mass shooting? the precedence is definitely there.

  65. Re:Can we finally admit? by skam240 · · Score: 2

    That's only true for small parts of Sub Saharan Africa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and suggesting differences in ethnicity are on the same level as the differences between the two sexes is what's "silly" around here.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  66. Pointing the finger by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This gun debate is getting really old, and it's never going to be "won" by either side. Just like abortion, women/gay/minority rights. It all just gets recycled into one big round after another. Talking heads will use majority opinion to get elected on these issues for years to come... ..Unless human beings wake tf up and realize they are responsible for their own actions. Period. It's not a "fair" world out there, there are plenty of crazies and just plain evil people out there that want to do harm (I would mostly gather because great harm had been done to them at some point in the past). So you have to be able to defend yourself. But the point is to raise as many children up to be ethical and respectful people.

    TL;DR: Respect is what's missing.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Pointing the finger by tquasar · · Score: 1

      I agree with the idea of some harm done in the past, as a youth or child. I dated a lady who I think was abused at a young age.

    2. Re:Pointing the finger by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      This gun debate is getting really old, and it's never going to be "won" by either side.

      No it has well and truly been won by the people in countries which have been living fine for many years mass shooting free since the government took our guns. At this point most of us are just laughing at the other "It is my second amendment right to die senselessly" side.

    3. Re:Pointing the finger by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      No it has well and truly been won by the people in countries which have been living fine for many years mass shooting free since the government took our guns. At this point most of us are just laughing at the other "It is my second amendment right to die senselessly" side.

      For countries without guns, substitute cars/airplanes/poisons/knives/bombs/etc.. and you'll see my point. It's not what's used that's the problem. People will always find a way to harm one another. It's been like that since the beginning.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    4. Re:Pointing the finger by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Unless human beings wake tf up and realize they are responsible for their own actions.

      That's actually the opposite of the lesson that we need to learn if we're going to solve this problem. These are not happy, well-adjusted people. And that's the result of our collective actions. We have prioritized the individual to such an extent that we have lost things, like responsibility for parenting. Individualism is legitimate and important, but not to such a degree that we act like events don't have causes.

      If we want these events to stop happening, we are going to have to start caring for one another.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Pointing the finger by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or not be an obese tub of lard and quickly run for cover. Most bandits and sickos have terrible aim with a handgun and can't hit a moving target.

      You are aware I hope that America has slid way down the rankings of fatness? We're not even in the top twenty any more. Sure, I know fat gamers, I am one. But I'm a lot less fat than I used to be. If not for the toe I crushed, I could sprint. I know lots of thin gamers, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Pointing the finger by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      If we want these events to stop happening, we are going to have to start caring for one another.

      Exactly this. Thank you.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    7. Re:Pointing the finger by PPH · · Score: 1

      I agree with the idea of some harm done in the past

      So, generations of getting even for past transgressions instead of putting all that behind you and getting ahead? When one's identity is based upon victim-hood, this is what you get. And it's the anathema of sportsmanship. You went in knowing that there was a good likelihood of losing. You lost, you learn from the experience and carry on.

      I dated a lady who I think was abused at a young age.

      That's a tough one. Because people generally don't sign up for abuse like they do for little league. You can just shrug and say that's the way it is between weaker and stronger individuals*. You could expect society to step up and provide justice. But our society frowns upon 'white knighting'. Chad is owed what he wants. And everyone else will just have to sit back and pick up the pieces afterwards. Or you could hand individuals some mechanism, not dependent on physical strength, that could equalize the situation. I wonder what that might be.

      *This isn't confined to male-female interactions.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Pointing the finger by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You could expect society to step up and provide justice.

      I could, but my expectation would be different from yours. You want revenge, I want substantive change. You have to stop shooters from shooting again, so you need to incarcerate them, and hopefully rehabilitate them. But the perpetrators of the underlying and driving crime are those who stand between the citizenry and a meaningful safety net. It's the politicians who oppose free [mental] health care and education, and it's the people who stigmatize mental health issues. Their actions produce mass shooters.

      Put yourself in the shoes of a kid who was raised to believe that violence is an acceptable answer to one's problems which don't involve violence themselves, who sees no future for himself, and who discovers a talent in himself that might give him that future. Now, dash that kid's hopes of succeeding based on that talent. What do you think is going to happen? He was created to do this. You have to work to control such people, but the best way to do that is to not create them. Some may be inadvertently created in spite of your best efforts, but the problem will be much smaller.

      Some countries with loads of guns have less gun crime than the USA, some have more. The defining factor is clearly not the number of guns. Something else must be more important. I would argue that it's the very precariousness of western life. Sure, the upper end is open, but the bottom end is very low, and most of us are moving down the scale and not up. It's a pressure cooker, and the escape vent is sealed. It's not a shock if it explodes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Pointing the finger by PPH · · Score: 1

      You want revenge,

      I don't know where you see that in my remarks. I don't want victims in the first place.

      The defining factor is clearly not the number of guns.

      Right. It's the culture. And in this country, we are multicultural. So what I want, the ability to settle differences peacefully, is not shared by my neighbors. They want payback for anyone who diss'ed them. I want to be secure in my person and property. But some people are looking at my stuff and figuring out how they can get some of it. Either under the cover of darkness, or the cover of government.

      Now, if I bring culture up, I'm a fascist. But I'm not interested in forcing my culture on other people. I just don't want to have to adopt theirs. Live and let live. But be prepared to cross paths with the occasional person who doesn't share my values about peaceful coexistence. Others suggest that if we were mono-cultural we could own lots of guns and be like Switzerland. Nope. Not going to happen. And it really shouldn't either.

      It's the politicians who oppose free [mental] health care and education

      But that's just another form of forcing people to conform to a standard. And drugging/treating people who don't. Where does that stop? Do we really have to lobotomize the McMurphy's? Society said 'No'. And we closed the mental hospitals. And stopped rounding up the weirdos (people who don't share our culture).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Pointing the finger by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I think it's two sides of the same coin. If we DID wake up and realize we're responsible for our own actions, we would care for one another. Or at least it'd be easier.

    11. Re:Pointing the finger by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      It's already been won. The gun rights already won it years ago. This is not unique by the way. Weapon control goes back past the Roman era. Same arguments, same results. In London they banned guns. Then the banned knives. Fix the social problem? Hell no, ban cars now. This is a social problem, not a gun or knife or anything else problem. You have to tell people what they don't want to hear - grow up. Be responsible. Some cases - Shut the fuck up.

  67. Sickness doesn't listen. by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    They only talk lies.

    Like, "Truth isn't Truth", or something.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  68. Diagnosis by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    A lot of people seem to have some extreme anger issues.

    Once they're raging, things can go stupid quickly. Doesn't even require a gun.

    As an example, drive on our freeways from time to time and watch how stupid people can be once the anger takes over.

    I think that's what sets America apart from the rest of the world. We're very quick tempered over minor stupid shit. The overall attitude is just angry.

    You may / may not agree with me but if you spend six months or more away from the US, it will be one of the first things you notice when you get back.

  69. Re: Yeah, no need to fear Lenin at all... davai ce by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    But there are a fuck of a lot of Russians-pretending-to-be-Americans here

    You have evidence of this? Please cite.

  70. Everytime a mass shooting happens.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .... I wonder "Oh, where in America is it this time ?"

    I'm hardly ever wrong.

  71. Re:come and take them. please. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    and now the peecee agenda is enabling a mass of immigrants to turn into an Islamic state.

    Somewhere there's an Islamic citizen wondering why we let the damn British back in here.

    I wonder, what does a country with testicles do? Stop the "demographic changes"? So more Brits than Arabs then. That's more civilized? Speak up, what are you getting at here. We can always let in a lot more Mexicans if we don't want it to become Islamic.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  72. Lets play American Massacre Bingo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thoughts and Prayers.

      Both Sides.

      Lone Wolf.

      Mental Illness.

      More Guns.

  73. Re:come and take them. please. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    but you alt-right nutjobs

    And yet, as seen in the killer's reddit posts, he's yet another angrily irrational left-leaning person who hated anyone who voted for Trump. Just another alt-righter, right? Gotcha.

    Sort of like it was an "alt-right" but never the less Bernie Sanders fan boy that decided to go and try to kill a bunch of Republican congress members? Is that how it works?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  74. Re:come and take them. please. by SandmanWAIX · · Score: 2

    I do understand your points and why you feel the way you do. I do feel sorry that guns are your "normal". You will never know different and understandably so as it has been ingrained in your society for generations.

    From a personal standpoint I am so happy I don't live in the US. There is a definite liberating sense of freedom and peace to live in a society where the thought of needing to lethally protect myself never crosses my mind (as practically no-one else has a gun).

  75. No, we can't by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

    Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent?

    Fuck, no!

    The US has about a third of a billion people. A tiny proportion of them are dangerously nuts. So... horrible stuff happens sometimes.

    You can blame the violence on video games. With the same logic, you can blame the violence on the chairs they were sitting in, or the snacks they ate.

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  76. Re: Yeah, no need to fear Lenin at all... davai c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You guys are so paranoid. A Russian behind every post...living in fear of Russians.

    Solution take guns from Democrats.

    Interesting thing: liberals fear Trump is taking their rights yet youre ready to give up your firearms to a tyrant and the Russians. Must not fear Republicans and the Russians too much...

  77. Re:Can we finally admit? by jma05 · · Score: 1

    > Good grief. The problem is mentally unstable people

    Are you suggesting that US has a unique mental health problem?

    I have seen far worse mental health situations elsewhere. Mental health is even a taboo topic in less developed countries, much less have imperfect access to care. Yet, in these countries, psychopaths and people who go postal don't do mass shootings (they may throw something around or charge with a sharp/heavy objects - much easier to deal with) because they don't live societies with a cavalier attitude to optimized killing tools.

  78. Healthcare, guns by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Healthcare in this country is by and large, a for-profit industry. America views being healthy as a privilege of success, not a basic human right. This means if you're not feeling entirely right in the head, but you're saving up to buy that new iPhone, you'll probably skip out on getting that psych evaluation.

    Around last holiday season, I bought something which required registration with the federal government, and the manufacturer insisted I take a few basic lessons before being allowed to use it. Oh wait, that was a consumer-grade camera drone, not a gun. I've never bought a gun, but I'd imagine there must be similar common-sense rules involved with something that is clearly more dangerous than a glorified toy quadcopter. Oh wait again, there aren't.

    I suppose we deserve this shit.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  79. Re:come and take them. please. by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See, in those countries other than America, where we lack guns to protect ourselves, if one in three hundred of us needs to "defend" ourselves every year, we'd be dead by now. Or homeless because all our stuff was stolen. But it doesn't work that way. The threat isn't present for us. The need-to-defend isn't present.

    Because other first world countries are bigger on the concept of social safety nets for people who fall on hard times. Here in America, we have this prevailing conservative attitude that if you can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you should just starve to death.

    Problem is, these people aren't content to sit in a gutter and slowly starve - instead, they turn to crime. Consequently, people with guns end up having to defend themselves from them.

    Bigger problem is, to sell "fixing" this to the American public, you'd have to tell them you're going to take some of their money and give it to deadbeats (you're not going to be able to shake that stigma), and they'll have to give up their guns too. That's why it's a tough sell.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  80. Re:come and take them. please. by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

    Maybe if more people were carrying he wouldn't have been so quick to go on a rampage in the first place, or they could at least have defended themselves and ended it quicker.

    I don't know which right-wing nutjob originally started this idiotic proposal which keeps getting parroted every time there's a shooting, but it has a huge logical flaw ya'll keep missing: If a bad guy with a gun shoots at least one person before getting shot by a good guy with a gun, it's still a shooting.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  81. Re:come and take them. please. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Is you country accepting pansies for permanent immigration?

    They complain, getting sick of ignoring them. Wish they would just leave.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  82. Re:come and take them. please. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Someone really should make a gun that looks like a game controller.

    It would buy you a split second.

    I'm really surprised nobody has wrapped orange tape around their gun barrel before nutting up. Same reason.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  83. Re:Just wondering by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    In Europe, maybe. Not in the US. Everything's bigger there.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  84. Re:They are not. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    In fact, a person who defended themself against a home invader actually was sentenced to two years in prison. The home invader?

    Nothing was done to them.

    Then it wasn't selfdefense. Self-defense is legal everywhere, gunning down unarmed people is not(*), even if they are breaking into your home.

    (*) except in Florida I hear.

  85. Re:Can we finally admit? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve

    Wow. Okay let's follow your line of thinking and look at the profession and loose association of everything anyone with murderous suicide intent had in common. I think you'll find the only really common denominator is that a person was born.

    Maybe we need to stop births, that way we can solve your root cause.

  86. Re:Time to ban video games by johnsie · · Score: 1

    One thing is that by spending so much time behind screens, people are not able to react properly to real life social situations or handle their emotions in such situations. That and the fact that Americans practically put guns into the hands of lunatics doesn't bode well for the future of the US as a society, especially with the climate of political hatred and financial uncertainly. It's a time bomb waiting to explode.

  87. American Stereotype by johnsie · · Score: 2

    The stereotypical American is someone who eats a supersized big mac meal and then launches a gun attack on their own school or work colleagues. While not partaking if this activity they are online ranting and raving about how bad the liberals or conservatives are. And of course bombing the crap out of third world countries because some Saudis hijacked four planes 17 years ago. That's how the world views America.

  88. Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk by SharpFang · · Score: 3

    ...if that. Obtaining parts that modify guns into full auto, or modifying them by yourself isn't all that hard, and if you're going to do a mass shooting you don't really care about legality of what you do. The bump stocks are an easily accessible, half-assed solution that requires holding the gun just right so that it shoots like full auto, and not as firmly as with real full auto - resulting in accuracy going to shit. Without bump stocks the shooters would quite likely seek out genuine full auto - and that would result in more people injured or killed.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  89. Re: Can we finally admit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is this shit modded interesting and the GP not?
    The point wasn't about a stupid flamebait between American and "European" football at all, but to show that the "video games cause violence" argument is ridiculous.

  90. Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk by Interfacer · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely nothing useful about a bump stock ban. But after the Las Vegas shooting, a blood sacrifice needed to be made to appease the masses, and bump stocks became the sacrificial lamb.

  91. Footballs by shayd2 · · Score: 1

    If footballs are outlawed only outlaws will have footballs

  92. Re:come and take them. please. by Cederic · · Score: 1

    As a Brit that still lives here I'm fucking proud that my country stood alone in the world against Nazi Germany and bankrupted an empire in order to meet its promises.

    I'm also proud that we helped the members of that empire transition to self rule, and continue to support them to this day.

    I look at the pussy liberal culture in the UK that was emerging even then and see how it has now driven the entire country into the ground

    You appear to be blind. I hope someone keeps paying your health insurance premiums for you.

  93. Re:come and take them. please. by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Not every mass shooting is done by someone that owns guns.

    Stop trying to demonise a whole class of people because of the actions of a few fuckwits that don't all even belong in that class.

    Nobody commits a mass shooting with a baseball bat, or automobile, or any fucking other thing besides a gun.

    Nobody commits a mass vehicle ramming attack with a gun. By your logic all automobile owners should be demonised for trying to run over pedestrians.

  94. Re:I don't play video games by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Cupcakes are tasty. I like fairy cakes myself.

    Wait, hang on. Why are we discussing cake? Oh. Was that meant to be an insult?

    Should have guessed you didn't know what you were talking about when you tried suggesting video games are all about shooting people up. It's not as though the tournament was entirely based around a computer game that doesn't have any guns in it.

  95. Re:More proof gamers are trash. by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Interesting that you describe that person as a gamer, rather than a failed business man, an owner of expensive sports cars, a mental illness sufferer or indeed any of the other identities that would apply.

    Pushing an agenda much? Just that 80% of the population qualify as 'gamer', it's not a terribly useful distinction when determining why someone might, e.g., kill themselves.

  96. Re:Living out video game fantasies? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Hmm. No.

  97. Re:Can we finally admit? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent? We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve, and now we have this.

    It's time to serious consider regulating video games and protecting our children.

    Uh, no.

    We have a person who was mad at Valve because he took away his easy income. It could have easily been a stock broker or a online scammer losing his income lashing out.

    Maybe we should stop selling the american dream of easy money and a government with a "hands off" attitude to mental health.

    you DO realize greed and avarice are human traits, not just american.

    having them is human, promoting them as good is American.

    --
    Just another second banana
  98. Re:Can we finally admit? by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    Can we finally admit that video games do, in fact, mess with young people's minds and make them more violent? We just had a story about a gamer going and killing an innocent family because he was mad at Valve, and now we have this.

    It's time to serious consider regulating video games and protecting our children.

    No. Because you're a moron. Considering the amount of video games sold and played and how long we've been using them and how much violence is happening because of video games.... nah son. Those numbers don't add up at all. Violence happened at a video game tournament. Why would video games be the cause why wouldn't it be gun worship? Why wouldn't it be white fragility? why wouldn't it be gamergate? Maybe there was a girl playing and it set him off losing in front of a girl. Because all of those factors have a MUCH higher correlation with violence than the super category of "video games"

    --
    Just another second banana
  99. Yeah, right. by skam240 · · Score: 1

    I find your concern for people with opiate problems highly suspect as there is absolutely no reason that both issues can't be discussed in the public sphere. Either you're a complete idiot or you're a scum bag whose trying to deflect attention away from a topic you don't want discussed by using the opiate crisis as an excuse.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Yeah, right. by e3m4n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, I am just calling out pussies like you, who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Your motives for disarming the public have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with establishing a totalitarian society. Your type _pretends_ to give a shit about the number of people killed calling it an epidemic. And yet nobody gives a shit about the drastic number of people (72,000 in 2017 alone) dying every day from something much more likely to happen to them. Every single day, every city has posts on nextdoor.com regarding break-ins and crime. Whenever the topic of opiate dependency driving the crime comes up, at no point does the discussion direct itself to dealing with that problem in order to bring down the number of breakin's. No, instead its a constant one-sided 'they made a conscious choice' mantra. See people like you do not give a shit about any death rate so long as you _feel_ safe. You _think_ this is going to make you safer. It's not.

          You cannot set up one group to have complete authority over the other and remotely pretend that both groups are equal. Gun violence is not the only thing unique to this country, we do a fair share of bullying too. In a society where only a small subset is given the power to use and abuse lethal force, where do you think these bullies are going to migrate? There are definitely some there now, but the problem will be a lot worse. You cannot say 'country XYZ doesnt have cops bullying the public' because their society doesn't have nearly the bullying that ours does. There was no concept of 'police' when we wrote the constitution. There were soldiers assigned to various garrisons to enforce the peace. The founding fathers were already aware of how abusive this system was. Hence why the constitution says no army should be standing for a duration exceeding two years. It also explains the 3rd amendment (forced to give quarters) because they know just how power gets abused.

      Don't like the CEO of chick-fil-a because he wrote a personal check to an anti-abortion group? Not a business check mind you, but a PERSONAL one. "We'll show him! We'll boycot the entire fucking chick-fil-a franchise and punish every fucking employee because he had the audacity to make a personal donation with something I disagree with!" no matter the topic, there is a hate group out there wanting to punish every single person until society reforms itself into what THEY think society should be like. It makes the Southern Baptist boycott of Disney back in the 80s look sane, and that was some bullying shit too. I dont pay for things that I don't agree with, but my influence stops at my telling someone else why *I* am not giving them a penny of my money.
       

    2. Re:Yeah, right. by skam240 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Your motives for disarming the public have nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with establishing a totalitarian society. "

      Oh Jesus Christ, now you're just going over the deep end. Virtually all of the rest of the first world has stricter gun control laws then us and still have vibrant, open democracies with regular crime rates at roughly the same level as ours. There is a very obvious solution to our high homicide and gun violence rates sitting right in front of us in almost every other first world nation. Meanwhile, no one currently has any good ideas on how to solve the opiate problem our country is having.

      You're just being stupid and choosing to demonize some one with claims that you have zero supporting evidence for. At this point if all you have is deflection and name calling I'm wasting my time talking to you.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:Yeah, right. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Sure they do.

      Knife attacks.
      Acid attacks.
      Truck-Of-Peace attacks.
      Grooming gangs prostituting children.
      Honor killings.
      FGM
      No-go zones where you could be mobbed to death.
      And yeah, ALL IN FIRST-WORLD COUNTRIES.

      Sure. VIBRANT!
      And open too! Just don't use mean words on Twitter OR YOU GO TO JAIL!

      Wake the fuck up.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:Yeah, right. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Wake the fuck up? How you about you learn about the world.

      Your nice list of things do certainly happen in first world countries (except no go zones, that's a myth) but you're showing your ignorance of just how much safer it is in every other first world country. Our homicide rate is around 5 times the average for first world countries and we are several full points higher then the next closest country. After that, crime rates are all very comparable throughout the first world so nothing on that list is happening to such a degree as to make it a problem on par with our out of control homicide rates. Basically, you're just as likely to have something painful happen to you in other first world nations but you are way less likely to be killed.

      After that, sure I'm not crazy about the incredibly few free speech restrictions a number of first world nations have but if you some how think that makes them horribly oppressive countries you don't really understand what that means.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:Yeah, right. by Chas · · Score: 1

      things do certainly happen in first world countries (except no go zones, that's a myth)

      Hahaha! Okay, narrative junkie confirmed. I'm going to stop paying attention to you now.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:Yeah, right. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Hahaha! Okay, you've shown that I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm making a lame excuse and looking for some other place to pedal my ignorance"

      Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  100. Defense is mostly a fantasy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Law-abiding people, on the other hand, would follow the rules, leaving the only civilian guns on the premises in the hands of the criminals.

    Yeah, funny how that's really only a problem in a country like the US where guns are far too readily available with barely any regulation. Strange how you almost never hear of such shootings in countries where it's hard to get a gun in the first place.

    Honestly the fantasy that FAR too many Americans have that they would be able to effectively defend themselves in a gun fight that starts at a time and place they cannot predict is utterly delusional. It is not practical or smart to be carrying a gun at all times. Unless you actually served in the military in a combat specialty or possibly on a police force, you almost certainly have no idea what you are doing and are more of a danger than an asset. Worse when the police do respond, you become a problem because they have to figure out if you are the shooter which puts them, you, and others in additional danger. If you respond to a shooter with your own firearm, nobody around you knows whether you are the "good guy" or not. If I see you brandish a gun I have to assume you are trying to murder me and act accordingly even if in reality you have the best of intentions. Imagine for a moment that I have a gun too and I see someone I don't know pull out a firearm in a crowd. What do you think is likely to happen? Several options and most of them very bad for all involved.

    Because, of course, guns don't just magically disintegrate when entering a "gun free zone."

    Which is why letting (essentially) anyone and everyone carry without regulation is a incredibly dumb idea.

    1. Re:Defense is mostly a fantasy by Chas · · Score: 1

      The real fantasy is this.

      "Guns are readily available with barely any regulation."

      Have you ever tried to purchase a firearm here in the US?

      And it still ignores the fact that CRIMINALS AND CRAZIES DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  101. Conscription by sjbe · · Score: 1

    What? Clearly we like it this way, or we'd do something about it. Just like everyone else has.

    "We"? We have some delusional idiots among us but let's not pretend all Americans are on board with the current idiotic situation.

    Another possible option would be mandatory military service for all US citizens from their 19th birthday to their 24th birthday. And mandatory reserve status for anyone who wants to own a gun.

    I have no problem with mandatory conscription as a condition of gun ownership. After all the 2nd amendment does say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." so let's for once enforce that part of the amendment. Good idea. The best part is that it does not in any way infringe on the "right of the People to keep and bear arms". It actually makes that right useful for once. I don't think mandatory conscription for all is a good idea or necessary given the likely dangers to the US. Honestly we already spend too much money on our military as it is with a volunteer force and conscription does not in general improve the capabilities of the military.

    Another alternative is that we can just keep doing what we're doing, letting any crazy jackass get all the guns and ammo they want. This is probably what will happen.

    Depressingly this is likely to remain the case.

    1. Re:Conscription by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      After all the 2nd amendment does say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." so let's for once enforce that part of the amendment. Good idea.

      You know what would be a good idea? Knowing what well-regulated means. The purpose of the second amendment was to eliminate the need for a standing military, since the authors of the 2a knew that a standing military was harmful to freedom.

      I don't think mandatory conscription for all is a good idea or necessary given the likely dangers to the US.

      No, you only think people who want to own guns should be enslaved. You're a highly selective kind of slaver.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Conscription by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You know what would be a good idea? Knowing what well-regulated means

      Agreed. You should learn.

      You don't get to say that to me right after I provided a citation that conclusively proves that you haven't. Run along, willfully ignorant tool.

      A military isn't necessarily harmful to freedom

      Yes, yes it is. This is not a new concept; it was understood by the people who wrote the 2a. And the larger it is, the more harmful.

      and in fact is necessary to protect those freedoms we enjoy.

      You mean in order to subjugate others so that we can steal their resources? That's unsustainable.

      Conscription = slavery? I think we're done here since you pretty clearly can't tell the difference.

      I certainly wish you were done, and would go away. Forced conscription == slavery, period.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  102. Re:YAAWG by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    So maybe you'd rather he firebombed the place - just a little gasoline, maybe a liquor bottle and a rag and a match. So much better than shooting them? There's 1000's of ways to kill a lot of people if you want to - those two immigrant pukes in Boston made pressure cooker bombs from the gunpowder from fireworks. Too simple. Guns are just easier, but you don't need one to do murder, you only need them to prevent murder. The victim's only chance is usually a gun, since other things that can stop the attack are usually too big or too expensive or too heavy to be carrying around. The victim needs something light, small, and portable to be able to retrieve it and stop an attack.

  103. In the real world... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Sorry to pop your pompous little bubble there, but the fact of the matter is that shit happens, and when it does, it's better to be prepared than unprepared.

    Really? Then why is it that we pretty much never hear of these "prepared" people you speak of doing anything actually helpful? Where are all the pistol packing "good citizens" when they are needed when these mass shootings happen? Your argument relies on a fantasy rather than how real people actually go about their lives. When the US has lower levels of gun violence than countries with more restrictive gun laws then and only then can you lecture us about how firearms make you "prepared".

    Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people.

    First off, I have NO idea if you are a "good person" or not. What I do know is that if you brandish a gun I have to assume your intent is to murder me or others and behave accordingly. We aren't going to have a conversation about it. That means my responses are going to be either A) flee or B) fight and that response is going to come fast. If my response is B then there is a good chance one or both of us ends up dead even if we both intend to help. Second, the notion that "good people" (implied to be carrying firearms) outnumbering "bad people" somehow prevents these shootings from happening is belied by the fact that THEY KEEP HAPPENING. How many have to die to disprove your fantasy that citizen shooters are going to create a deterrence in the real world?

    I sincerely hope that if your life is ever in danger, that there is someone equipped and prepared to defend you, but kindly stop pretending that abject helplessness is a virtue.

    The odds of someone (including you) being properly equipped and prepared to engage in a fire fight on your behalf are a good approximation of zero. Even in the US most people do not carry firearms 24/7 particularly in public spaces. You included and don't pretend otherwise. Your argument is a strawman. People aren't helpless just because they aren't carrying a firearm, and even if they are that doesn't mean they are prepared to deal with a real live shooting event.

  104. And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    This person killed three people with a handgun that he purchased legally. As is the case with the overwhelming majority of mass shooting events it ended only when the shooter took his own life (trying to respond more quickly is a rather futile goal, generally we can't do that regardless of how many guns are around in any hands).

    Equally important is that not only are handguns comically easy to get in many states, but he could have pulled this off with other weapons that are even easier to get in many more states. A pump-action shotgun with a 6 shot magazine can be had in almost any state for under $500. All you need is a driver's license and to clear an exceptionally quick background check that is known to have issues. In many places it takes less time to buy this than it does to buy sudafed (and in some cases these are available over wider hours of business than sudafed as well).

    Seriously, why do we need access to guns under such exceptionally loose terms? Why can't we slow down people just a little when they are literally making life and death decisions?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      If he'd driven through the crowd with a car, would you be calling for increased car laws?

      If he'd walked through the seated rows wildly swinging a baseball bat, would you be talking about restricting little league games?

      If he'd walked in with a propane tank bomb, would you be looking at regulating barbeques?

      If he'd walked in with a large fan, a sack of flour and a lighter, would we be talking about how nobody 'needs' to own a kitchen, and should eat out at restaurants with licensed and trained professionals doing the cooking?

      If he'd walked in with a big jug of bleach, and a big jug of chlorine, mixed them up and left, would you be advocating for background checks at Home Depot in the cleaning aisle?

      You ask 'why do we need access to guns under such exceptionally loose terms?' Why are you assuming that if somebody wanted to do harm like this guy did, he'd walk into a gun store, run into some red tape, and figure 'oh, ok, guess I won't go harm a bunch of innocents, I wonder if Dairy Queen's open?'

      Lets address the root issue, violence, rather than fixating on what tool somebody chooses to use to perpetrate that violence.

      Or, put another way, why would you expect a gun ban to stop violence, when the existing bans against violence and murder don't? Does it need to be double-illegal to make people think twice? Triple-illegal?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      Or, put another way, why would you expect a gun ban to stop violence, when the existing bans against violence and murder don't?

      I did not call for a gun ban. You went a bit past hyperbolic there to claim that I somehow did. I'm merely calling for more serious restrictions on who can buy guns and how they can be sold. I am a gun owner myself and I was appalled at the fact that I could buy a shotgun at Bass Pro Shops in less time than it takes me to buy sudafed at CVS. Why do we need to make it so easy for people to kill each other?

      There are plenty of problems at play with this shooter for sure, but none of them were helped by how easy it was for him to get that gun. What problem are we solving by making guns so cheap and easy to acquire?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I am a gun owner myself and I was appalled at the fact that I could buy a shotgun at Bass Pro Shops in less time than it takes me to buy sudafed at CVS

      I suspect... you are leaving out some details... as in both cases you would have been required to show a state issued photo id (which is racist when asked for to vote). For the shotgun purchase, Bas Pro Shop being an FFL, you would have filled out a 4473 and them called it into the FBI (or submitted online)... while the CVS would employee would have plugged your drivers license info into the computer for the federal list of frequent buyers.

      What exactly was the delay at CVS?

      Or are you dishonestly hiding the fact that most FFLs will take your money before they run the check, during which time you have technically purchased something, you just cannot have physical posession of it. If so, you should try buying a NFA item... where what you legally own spends 9 months in someone else's safe as they wait to hear back from the BATFE as to if they can hand it to you or not.

    4. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      What problem are we solving by making guns so cheap and easy to acquire?

      What problem are you attempting to solve by making guns harder to acquire? Because it sure isn't 'violence,' 'murder,' or even 'death rate.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    5. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I suspect... you are leaving out some details

      No. You weren't at either, so I'm not sure why you think you are more aware of what went down than I was.

      you would have been required to show a state issued photo id (which is racist when asked for to vote). For the shotgun purchase, Bas Pro Shop being an FFL, you would have filled out a 4473 and them called it into the FBI (or submitted online)

      At Bass Pro Shops that entire process took less than 5 minutes. The form doesn't even cover a full side of one sheet of paper, the response took far less time than it took me to pick out a gun.

      while the CVS would employee would have plugged your drivers license info into the computer for the federal list of frequent buyers.

      Except the law won't allow just any "CVS [...] employee" to sell sudafed. They are required to be a registered pharmacist. If the pharmacy is closed but the store is open, no sudafed for you. If the pharmacist is on break, no sudafed for you. If the pharmacist is helping someone else you have to wait. This can easily and often take more than 5 minutes.

      But go ahead and keep trying to paint me as a liar if you want. Tell me about what I experienced when I was thousands of miles away from you, apparently you knew the experience better than I did.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    6. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      What problem are you attempting to solve by making guns harder to acquire? Because it sure isn't 'violence,' 'murder,' or even 'death rate.'

      How many people are intentionally killed by something other than a gun? Sure, more people die in traffic accidents than do by gun violence but it is exceedingly rare that someone dies in a car accident and afterwards we find the driver of the other vehicle specifically set out to kill that person. Same with swimming pools; yes a lot of people drown every year but very rare is the case of someone intentionally killing someone else by drowning.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Back in the olden days, people in car crashes generally died of head trauma. So they did something about then, then people started dying of chest trauma. So they did something about then, then people started dying of....

      You're concentrating on 'they were killed by a gun.' You should be concentrating on 'they were killed.' The tool should be utterly irrelevant to the matter; the issue here is that somebody felt the need to take the lives of other human beings, and went ahead and did it. If he didn't have access to a gun, he'd have used another tool. Look at solving the actual issue: people resorting to murder, rather than worrying about which tool that murder happened to be committed with.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Back in the olden days, people in car crashes generally died of head trauma. So they did something about then, then people started dying of chest trauma. So they did something about then, then people started dying of....

      And none of that in any way refutes my point that hardly anyone is intentionally murdered by motor vehicle trauma.

      the issue here is that somebody felt the need to take the lives of other human beings, and went ahead and did it.

      The tool - which was far too easy for him to get access to - made that far too easy to do.

      If he didn't have access to a gun, he'd have used another tool.

      That's very highly debatable to say the least. If his only way to kill them had been with his bare hands, he likely would have felt it wasn't worth the effort. Even if he had a sharp knife, his chances of pulling it off would not have been very high and he probably wouldn't have done it. The gun made it very, very easy.

      Was there something wrong with the person who killed the two other people before taking his own life? Without question. But why do we insist on making it so easy for people to do this?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    9. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by DaHat · · Score: 1

      No. You weren't at either,

      Except I walked through the process and asked you to correct me, and instead, you helped prove my point.

      so I'm not sure why you think you are more aware of what went down than I was.

      Because I've probably purchased more firearms over the years, and from more places (both stores & states), so am very familiar with the process... both technically and legally. Ditto for sudafed... again, recall how I went through the process?

      the response took far less time than it took me to pick out a gun.

      That would be the "I" in NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), but it's not always a sure thing... more on that in a min.

      If the pharmacy is closed but the store is open, no sudafed for you. If the pharmacist is on break, no sudafed for you. If the pharmacist is helping someone else you have to wait.

      And there is the additional information you left out, funny how I knew that was the case.

      Did you know not every employee at the Bass Pro Shop can sell you the gun and process the background check? I've never actually been to a Bass Pro Shop (nearest one is rather new and an hour away from me), but I imagine they are like other sporting goods stores (Cabelas, Sheels, Gander Mountain, Big 5, etc), where the firearm department has it's own checkout process. If everyone in that section is busy dealing with other customers, called in sick, or just don't like the way you look... no gun for you, as the friendly folks from the boots or front checkout lines probably aren't going to be able to hand you a 4473 and call it in.

      This is actually quite similar to how alcohol is treated at grocery-stores in many states, where some employees aren't even legally able to handle it as part of a checkout process due to age or lack of training.

      This can easily and often take more than 5 minutes.

      Ditto a NICS check, but having only done it once (it sounds like), you don't know it that it you can get a "Proceed", a "Delay", or a "Deny". In the second case, you may have to wait up to 3 business days before you can take home your lawfully purchased property... and that is subject to mood of the FFL as to if they opt to release it or not.

      Of course, there are additional controls on pseudoephedrine in some places, such as Oregon & Mississippi where you actually require a doctors prescription to get some. Hell of a thing if you are visiting from out of state and get hit by some congestion.

      But go ahead and keep trying to paint me as a liar if you want. Tell me about what I experienced when I was thousands of miles away from you, apparently you knew the experience better than I did.

      Interesting how defensive you get when I simply pointed out a lack of specifics from you... and when you offered specifics, you revealed your lack of knowledge on the subject, apparently only based on a good experience of buying a gun, and a bad experience of trying to buy sudafed and automatically assumed them both representative, without ever stopping to realize how similar both systems are, and that in fact, legally getting sudafed from a store is often easier than it is to legally buy a gun from a store. Can't get any at CVS? There are plenty of other drug stores out there who can help you (I've driven great distances to get a Rx filled in a hurry), however if NICS tells a gun store to delay, you probably aren't going to get a different answer should you try another.

    10. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      And none of that in any way refutes my point that hardly anyone is intentionally murdered by motor vehicle trauma.

      The point is, if you magically make all guns go away, gun violence goes down, knife violence goes up. Take away the knives, and blunt force violence goes up. All because you're not addressing the issue, violence, but playing keepaway with the tools.

      That's very highly debatable to say the least. If his only way to kill them had been with his bare hands, he likely would have felt it wasn't worth the effort. Even if he had a sharp knife, his chances of pulling it off would not have been very high and he probably wouldn't have done it. The gun made it very, very easy.

      The fact that you're unimaginative doesn't mean they aren't. Up here in Canada, people are going apeshit over shootings in Toronto, but a guy plowing down pedestrians with a cube van dropped off of the news within days. Why? Because, exactly as you're illustrating, people are oddly scared of gun violence, but perfectly willing to accept other violence.

      But why do we insist on making it so easy for people to do this?

      For fuck's sake, instead of making it HARDER to be a mass murderer, maybe figure out how to reduce the instances of mass murder?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The point is, if you magically make all guns go away, gun violence goes down, knife violence goes up.

      First of all, I didn't say anything about making "guns go away". I don't know where you came up with the idea to associate such a thing with me.

      Second, I have not heard of a country that increased gun restrictions and then saw a statistically meaningful increase in knife violence. I certainly haven't heard of mass stabbings happening in Australia, for example.

      But why do we insist on making it so easy for people to do this?

      For fuck's sake, instead of making it HARDER to be a mass murderer, maybe figure out how to reduce the instances of mass murder?

      Do you have any ideas you would like to propose to reduce the instances of mass murder? I can point out that mass murder is exceedingly rare in countries where guns are even slightly more difficult to get, but I haven't seen any reason to expect you would be receptive to that. How would you like to reduce mass murder?

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    12. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      No. You weren't at either,

      Except I walked through the process and asked you to correct me, and instead, you helped prove my point.

      I was not aware that the point you were out to prove was that you don't know what you're talking about in terms of the amount of time it takes to buy a gun vs the amount of time it takes to buy sudafed, or that you weren't present when I bought either.

      If the pharmacy is closed but the store is open, no sudafed for you. If the pharmacist is on break, no sudafed for you. If the pharmacist is helping someone else you have to wait.

      And there is the additional information you left out, funny how I knew that was the case.

      What information do you think I left out? I looked for you to back up that accusation, and you never did. Again you seem to be trying to convince someone (yourself, perhaps, as you certainly won't convince anyone else?) that you were able to observe my transactions from thousands of miles away when you weren't there.

      Of course, there are additional controls on pseudoephedrine in some places, such as Oregon & Mississippi where you actually require a doctors prescription to get some. Hell of a thing if you are visiting from out of state and get hit by some congestion.

      Perhaps you have forgotten that within our own lifetimes sudafed went from being Rx-only, to being OTC, to being controlled OTC. The allergy medicine market in particular has exploded as more and more drugs have been released from Rx-only to OTC status in the past 15 years in particular (sudafed even earlier than that). Just because the government says a drug can be OTC doesn't mean a state cannot change its status to something more restrictive, though.

      and when you offered specifics, you revealed your lack of knowledge on the subject

      That was a direct quote on what you wrote. I recommend you go back and read it again to see how silly it looks.

      a bad experience of trying to buy sudafed and automatically assumed them both representative

      Can you see your erroneous assumption there or do I need to point it out to you? You seem to believe yourself to be reasonably intelligent, hopefully you can find it on your own.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Do you have any ideas you would like to propose to reduce the instances of mass murder? I can point out that mass murder is exceedingly rare in countries where guns are even slightly more difficult to get, but I haven't seen any reason to expect you would be receptive to that. How would you like to reduce mass murder?

      Increased education funding, increased social assistance, mental health funding, and generally working to change America's general culture of violence and confrontation.

      Now, to be clear, I happen to agree that there's sane gun control and access that honors the rights of the individual while at the same time recognizing the inherent risk of a firearm, the exact same way car control and access laws recognize that cars are inherently dangerous, without demonizing them. But in America, the genie is out of the bottle, and continuing to concentrate on 'it's too easy to get a gun' and completely ignoring 'lets figure out why these people are driven to this extreme, and maybe see if we can lessen that' is just bloody stupid.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    14. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Increased education funding, increased social assistance, mental health funding, and generally working to change America's general culture of violence and confrontation.

      I support all of that. I have mentioned after other mass shootings that mental health care is a glaring hole in our society in general right now, and the continued stigma attached to it does not help society.

      But in America, the genie is out of the bottle, and continuing to concentrate on 'it's too easy to get a gun' and completely ignoring 'lets figure out why these people are driven to this extreme, and maybe see if we can lessen that' is just bloody stupid.

      If I may elaborate a bit here, I wanted to focus on the fact that guns are astonishingly easy to get in this country, but I don't see it as the only way to reduce violence. I do see basic, reasonable restrictions on the sale of firearms as one thing that can help with this. I am a gun owner myself and I enjoy shooting for sport. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to extend waiting times to purchase a gun; I've never had a situation where I spontaneously went out to shoot without planning it days, weeks, or even months in advance. If you know even a couple days beforehand, you could go get the process started and your gun would be ready to go. This wouldn't stop the well-planned mass shootings but it could reduce the rage killings from people who snapped and went off the handle quickly, and it doesn't impede the right of the people to own and bear arms in accordance with their local laws.

      But yes, we need to do more to figure out why these people are snapping like this and doing these things. It doesn't help though that we have a lot of people who are in various ways dead set against education funding, increased social assistance, mental health funding, and generally working to change America's general culture of violence and confrontation. I'd like to add to that list that we also have a real hard time getting more federal research dollars - even for fundamental mental health research that is not connected in any way to firearms - right now.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    15. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Awesome! We've hashed things out, and we're in agreement.

      You know, I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day about how America has a very confrontational culture; it's baked into the legal system, it's baked into the governmental system, especially with the two-party reality, it's baked into the mythology, and it's baked into the basic culture.

      You mentioned that other countries with stricter gun laws don't automatically have higher non-gun violence rates, which universally true, but I'd also like to point out that those other countries tend to have lower violence for the same reason they have tighter gun laws; they both point to different cultural norms, rather than one following from the other.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    16. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      You know, I was talking to a buddy of mine the other day about how America has a very confrontational culture; it's baked into the legal system, it's baked into the governmental system, especially with the two-party reality, it's baked into the mythology, and it's baked into the basic culture.

      I would split the two-party reality from the governmental system, though. Our government doesn't have to be a two-party system, it's just that for as long as anyone has been alive who is alive today it has essentially been that way. There have been other parties that have come and gone, and neither of the parties we have now existed in 1776 - arguably they are products of the 1920s or perhaps even more recently.

      I'm not sure that the two-party reality (I like that phrase, by the way; I might start using it more often) necessarily requires the confrontational culture, though it does seem to benefit from it. A two party system makes it easy to get people to vote for candidate A out of disdain or fear of person B even if they don't actually agree with person A. When candidate A can confidently say "you'll end up with candidate B in power if you don't elect me to power", it changes the psychology of voting.

      I'd also like to point out that those other countries tend to have lower violence for the same reason they have tighter gun laws; they both point to different cultural norms, rather than one following from the other.

      Indeed I think we're in a agreement that gun violence is a multi-factorial problem. From my vantage point while there is no single solution that will resolve it satisfactorily I think there are some things that should be tried sooner than later that would inconvenience most people very little (if at all). I myself am very much in the camp of people who are tired of people either only wanting to talk about it or (as seem to be the case with too many of our politicians) not even want to talk about it.

      To bring it back around to your observation of the poison of the two party system, a lot of people have shifted to assuming that people they disagree with are automatically arguing in "bad faith". In the context of the gun argument, those who refuse to move on gun legislation like to tell us that those who want new gun regulations are aspiring to move us down a slippery slope towards guns being taken away. Similarly those who want to push legislation through ASAP often tell us that anyone opposed to it is being paid off by the gun industry. It leaves us at the same impasse, year after year after year after year after year ...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    17. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The main problem with a two-party situation is that it's inherently polarizing. The only way to differentiate yourself from the other party is to illustrate your differences, and to move further away from the other party. It also leads to the Take Out Menu problem; for example, in the US, if you're pro-life, you're assumed to automatically be anti-gun. Whereas, in real life, people don't automatically fall into the neat camp on one side or the other.

      I'm a Canadian, and I'm liberal, but I can't vote with the Liberal party because, hey, on top of being pro-socialism, pro-rights, pro-choice, and so on, I'm also pro-legal-firearms-ownership. And the Liberal Party of Canada believes that firearms should be banned, and are busily deciding if outlawing handguns completely will solve the problem of 'illegal guns used in crimes.'

      America has a lot of problems that need solving with it's political system, including lobbying, 'corporations are people and bribery, excuse me, campaign contributions, are free speech,' voting shenanigans, and so on.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    18. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      The main problem with a two-party situation is that it's inherently polarizing.

      I think that is pretty close to what I said, but in fewer words :)

      The only way to differentiate yourself from the other party is to illustrate your differences, and to move further away from the other party

      I would argue that the parties here haven't really moved that much further away from each other as much as they have moved further away from the center. The democrats have moved to right-of-center, and the republicans to very-very-very-very-extremely far right of center. I will also say this reflects pretty accurately on the collective lack of spine in the democratic party; they are willing to be abused by the republicans repeatedly and allow themselves to be bullied into this weak position.

      Whereas, in real life, people don't automatically fall into the neat camp on one side or the other.

      Politics generally makes a lot more sense on a 2-axis plot, but the US seems to want to keep placing things on this weird 1-axis plot. This does encourage grouping and polarization; the 2-party system tends to encourage that.

      And the Liberal Party of Canada believes that firearms should be banned, and are busily deciding if outlawing handguns completely will solve the problem of 'illegal guns used in crimes.'

      I am most definitely not an expert on Canadian politics. However when I look at the website for the Liberal party of Canada, their
      gun policy proposal does not to me read as one that wants to take away or ban all handguns.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    19. Re:And we still won't discuss gun access by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I am most definitely not an expert on Canadian politics. However when I look at the website for the Liberal party of Canada, their gun policy proposal does not to me read as one that wants to take away or ban all handguns.

      Well, you have to read between the lines, and be more up-to-speed on Canadian politics. Until very recently (as in three days ago) they were reluctant to come right out and say it, because they knew they'd alienate, amoung others, rural voters.

      Now, though, this. I personally think this is just pandering to their base, but they won't actually do anything, but it flies directly in the face of their protestations about wanting to write policy based on evidence and data.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  105. Re:come and take them. please. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Why not take it one step further and make murder illegal? Then he wouldn't have been able to murder at all.

    If making something illegal doesn't make less of it, then why do so-called "Christian conservatives" want to make abortion illegal? Why have any laws at all?

    I'm sorry, but it sounds awfully like you're legitimizing anti-abortion laws here. Such laws don't work. They shift who has the abortions towards the poorer end of the spectrum, and they make them much more dangerous, but they don't prevent them. And anti-gun laws don't work, either. They shift who has the guns towards the criminal end of the spectrum, and the richer end (since they can afford to get around the restrictions one way or another) but hang the poor out in the wind. Criminals still have them, citizens don't, and then they are even more vulnerable.

    If you want to fix the gun problem, the answer is just like fixing the drug problem. Care for people's needs (including education, but more notably food, clothes, shelter, and community) and you'll see the problem improve. In fact, the problem is already improving; gun deaths due to assault are generally falling year-on-year, in spite of mass shooting events. Gun suicides continue to climb. Didn't we learn anything from the rat experiment? When you put rats in an empty cage with drugs, they will do the drugs until they die. When you put rats in a healthy environment, and offer them drugs, most of them ignore the drugs and do other things. If the environment becomes overcrowded and their needs thus aren't met, then they become interested in the drugs.

    We are not so different from rats. If our needs are met, there will be less violence of all kinds. Our needs are not being met.

    UBI and national health care, now. Taking guns away from people with an established history of violence, fine. National gun control? Are you sure this is the gang of criminals you want regulating who can be armed?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  106. Re:come and take them. please. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Nobody uses their home security system to go murder a bunch of kids.

    Yeah, it's manslaughter, not murder. The first world lifestyle is predicated upon the suffering and death of the residents of the third world, and the security system is for protection of those ill-gotten gains.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  107. Re: Seriously, GOPtards... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Yes, so let's say half as many people are inclined to do so, but the means they must use, absent guns, kill 3x as many people per incident, on average.

    Did we do better, because the number of incidents decreased by 50%? Or worse, because the death toll increased by 50%?

    At least with a gun you can take cover, GTFO, or return fire when you hear the first shots. With an IED, it really only makes one sound and by the time you hear it the worst has already happened.

    Beside that, how do you propose we manage who can get them easily when most people who misuse them have no disqualifying factors until the first time they misuse them (e.g. after they own one)? Now, I don't disagree with you, and more than one shooting in recent history could have been prevented if the FBI and local police had acted on legitimate tips from the public, but that's different from managing who can get them. I'm genuinely curious how you propose that.

    Ah, and for the fact that you can make a workable firearm from about $30 in Home Depot parts. It might only survive a handful of rounds being fired, but that's all that's needed for a mass shooting: 9 shots fired, 5 dead (including the shooter) and multiple injured.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  108. Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk by SharpFang · · Score: 2

    > AR

    Why'd you choose one of the hardest out there? Converting AK to full auto without semi-auto option takes like 5 minutes with no tools, just a piece of wire to tie two parts together. There's a book on Amazon, "Full-Auto Conversion Of The SKS Rifle." To convert FN FNC you need to make this kind of part. This all within 10 minutes of googling.

    BTW, converting AR to full-auto with no semi-auto option is supposedly not all that hard either.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  109. Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Seeing as the actual lamb which did all the shit (again and again and again and again) is as venerated as Jesus for [insert weird reasons here], that's the best anyone can hope for. Remember: when something is intrinsically irrational, any attempts to curtail it will appear irrational from its perspective. You seem to have figured out the latter part, but not yet the former.

  110. Re:Yeah, no need to fear Lenin at all... davai cea by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    You just laid a major burn on every Democrat in America.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  111. Re:come and take them. please. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Gun culture is sick culture.

    Eh? I live in a very heavily armed and very safe place. In fact, it is safer than the average European country. What is sick about wanting to preserve and protect what makes my home unique from most cultures and countries in the world throughout history?

  112. Re:Yeah, no need to fear Lenin at all... davai cea by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

    As an American I have frequently lamented our public education system and pointed to other countries as models of education systems that should be emulated.

    Prithee, which country are you a product of? I am deeply interested by your manifest intellect. In particular interest is the complete lack of political education and critical thinking skills you have been trained in. I would like to study the obviously dysfunctional non-American education system that created American-like results.

    Care to elucidate me?

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  113. Re:come and take them. please. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing we have nearly constant shootings so we are never allowed to talk about guns.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  114. Well... by Brostenen · · Score: 1

    And this comes as a surprise? I guess school shootings are too boring now. Own it America, or change your law.

    1. Re:Well... by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Which specific law(s) do you want to see changed?

  115. The trouble with guns by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    is it makes it real easy to kill a lot of people fast. Cars require your target to be somewhere you can get a car. Bombs require some skill (and yes, I know it's not a lot of skill, but if you're already mentally deranged it's a fairly high barrier).

    This is also why guns are such a problem for suicide. You can blow your head off before the meds kick in and you realize you don't want to die.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  116. Gun free zones doen't exist to stop mass shooters by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they exist to stop casual or spur of the moment shooters. Bars are a good place for gun free zones since drunk people do stupid things and, well, Hotels often have bars. But there's lot of places that prefer to be gun free since the odds of a mass shooter showing up and getting taken out is the odds of a fist fight escalating into a gun fight.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  117. Re:come and take them. please. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Maybe at one time. Not for a long long time, though.

    Specifically, 1977, when the NRA began changing from 'gun safety and training' to 'firearms ownership advocacy.'

    The NRA in the 1930s:

    I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.

    Now, it's important to note that at the time, the NRA was was pro-control, not anti-ownership.

    It's also important to note that the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees free ownership of firearms by private citizens harkens back to the olden times of 1988 when a bunch of activist judges on the SCOTUS overthrew the prior two hundred years of constitutional interpretation and law.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  118. Why the Fuck by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Was I seeing Mass shooting memes YESTERDAY on Facebook?!!?

    https://www.facebook.com/icarr...

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  119. Oh look, another shooting by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    ...the shooter was a gamer who was competing in the tournament and lost...

    Most of the mass shooters are losers, figuratively speaking. This guy was literally a loser.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  120. Re:come and take them. please. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Eh? I live in a very heavily armed and very safe place.

    And the rest of us hope that you stay in your bunker and off the streets.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  121. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 2

    I do feel sorry that guns are your "normal".

    There's no reason to feel sorry. America, has a nation, only exists because of free access to firearms and other weapons. We were a colony of what was arguably the most powerful nation on the globe at that time, after all. And the potential need to have another revolution was the very reason the founders of these United States legally enshrined the right to own a gun in our constitution. It's right up there with all the other essential freedoms, like the freedom of speech, assembly, and to not have the government just seize your propriety at any one time.

    here is a definite liberating sense of freedom and peace to live in a society where the thought of needing to lethally protect myself never crosses my mind

    Well that's an interesting point there and one that a lot of people from outside of the US don't really acknowledge. And that's the perception of crime and shootings in general. The corporate media will produce a constant stream of coverage of sensationalized death, unless it counters any narrative that's inconvenient for a media narrative. Then they'll bury it. Kind of like how it just came out that for the first time the number of murders in London has exceeded the number of murders in New York City.

  122. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  123. Re:come and take them. please. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    It's a damage mitigation strategy.

    It's not possible to get rid of all psychopathic assholes, because new ones are born every day. But if it's a pain-in-the-ass to get a gun, fewer psychopathic assholes will have them and have to resort to less-deadly means of venting their rage.

    To see how this works, let's go with your drug analogy. How many people regularly get a hold of heroin compared to the number of people who regularly get a hold of alcohol? A whole lot less people get heroin, since it takes some more effort to get.

    Maybe if more people were carrying he wouldn't have been so quick to go on a rampage in the first place, or they could at least have defended themselves and ended it quicker.

    Based on statistics from the military, about 1/3 to 2/3rds of the shots fired in a firefight like this do not hit their intended target. So, put a whole lot of armed people there and they'll shoot a lot of bystanders.

    Add to this the confusion: One guy starts shooting. Three people start shooting him. The next three people draw and have to figure out who's the aggressor. Some are going to get it wrong and shoot some of your "good guys". Plus you've got that missing-1/3rd-of-the-shots thing taking out other bystanders, so they really do look like bad guys. Which will draw fire from other good guys, causing more people to drop and more firing.

    Which is why an enormous amount of police training is when not to shoot at people....or at least it used to be.

    A heavily-armed crowd is a fantastic way for a suicidal psychopath to cause a whole lot of death.

  124. Re:come and take them. please. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Safer than most of Europe... Ok. Good luck banning knives.

  125. Not about guns by Bitbeard · · Score: 1

    Game rage, pure and simple.

    I'm just a decent below-tournament-level player and have been raged on countless times. I've even been banned from servers by admins who did no know how to play. Calling me a cheater is bad enough, but they often go on to threaten my life because they lost a lowly video game. After their rant, besides the obvious "get more practice", I offer them gaming advice like considering the purchase of surround sound headphones, not walking their character in the middle of the street, considering clearing the room with a flashbang/grenade before charging in, etc. My offer of help is always rewarded with more rage. Clearly they cannot identify themselves as the problem.

    And so, if you want to know what caused this, there you go.

  126. Re:come and take them. please. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    When I see British citizens mocking the USA I just remember that in 100 years or so, we went from ruling 25% of the world to living on an island the size of Michigan.

    I assume you attribute this to your strict gun laws? If that's the case you either have a causation problem or maybe you're actually responding to a different threat about something completely different. God knows the reduction of the UK empire doesn't have even the slightest of anything to do with what has been discussed ANYWHERE in the over 1000 comments on this story so far.

    The entire country has totally become a handout culture, and now the peecee agenda is enabling a mass of immigrants to turn into an Islamic state.

    LOL did you leave the UK voluntarily or were you kicked out for being a twat?

  127. Re:come and take them. please. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Don't look now your hypocrite is showing!

  128. Re:come and take them. please. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Gun culture is about advocating and practicing responsibility and safety.

    Gun culture is whatever either says says it is. Unfortunately one side has some statistics behind it rather than just some nice sounding words.

  129. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing we have nearly constant shootings so we are never allowed to talk about guns.

    I can't tell if you're trolling or just very stupid. The media loves talking about shootings and will flock to report on any event that isn't inconvenient for their greater narrative. Read: the vast majorly of shootings in the US, which usually involve violent criminal thugs shooting at other criminals.

  130. and he killed 3 people by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    instead of 30... Anyway it'll drop off quickly because this has become routine. 3 dead and 9 injured is barely even news anymore...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  131. They regulated guns in the 1700s you know by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the 2nd amendment was not nor was it ever a carte blanc to have as many guns in any way shape and form as you want.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  132. Wow, that's some impressive cherry picking by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you're comparing a variety of 1st world nations with strong natural resources and few enemies to the likes of Yemen (currently under siege by Saudi Arabia with the help of America and occupying the same slot as America on it's list ), Somolia (a country that suffers constant droughts and has no natural resources) and Venezuela (which the US shut out of the world banking system and then used their inability to pay debts to seize property from, funny how it's OK when we do it).

    Yeah, take a bunch of people who've been shit all over by circumstance and the most powerful nations on earth and hey, what do you know, they have trouble maintaining functional governments.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Wow, that's some impressive cherry picking by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      you're comparing a variety of 1st world nations with strong natural resources ...

      Both Venezuela and South Sudan have huge oil reserves. Congo has more minerals than any other country but Russia. Their problems are corruption and kleptocratic governments, not "lack of resources".

  133. That stat makes me nervous by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I read a news article once about an old man who had a pizza girl knock on his door (wrong house). He shot her dead. Said he felt threatened. By a pizza girl.

    I also know several gun nuts who carry talk about how they'd love to be in an active shooter scenario so they could shoot back...

    I mean, I know the plural of anecdote is not data and all, but I swear to God there's a lot of folks out there that just want to shoot somebody.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  134. Banning Sudafed wasn't suppose to stop meth by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it was supposed to stop meth labs in the city limits, which is by and large has. True, we'd be better off legalizing all drugs, implementing single payer and then treating drug use as an illness by supplying the users, making them take their drug in a clinical setting and then immediately providing consulting. But who the hell is gonna pay for all that?

    This is another one of those "rational irrational" decisions. I can't have a functioning healthcare system for the working class but I _can_ have gun control that keeps guns out of their hands. But then again it doesn't look like we can have that either. People _love_ guns. So we'll just have mass shootings every couple of days (seriously, there's one every few days now).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  135. Worked for Australia by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and Japan. Singapore too (though they're ridiculously draconian to do it). You do need a strong enough economy to keep crime to a minimum though... My country (America) probably doens't have that.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  136. I'd like to live in a country by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    that isn't so built up that a guy passing recognizes body armor when he sees it, knows how to compensate for it and is carrying the firepower to do so... That just doesn't seem like a safe place to live.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  137. it's ok by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    You are not saving lives. Killings will happen and murder rate in US is not outrageous. It is only perceived as such.

    Focus on what really kills Americans instead of media darlings. Focus on something that rarely makes headlines despite statistics.

    There is no "murder" epidemic even in Baltimore. Stop being liberal to killers. Hang them in a proper way: in 3 days, in a month, in a year, but not in a fricking 20 years.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  138. Re: Yeah, no need to fear Lenin at all... davai ce by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    Wooo. You're a smart A.C. I would hesitate to call you clever, tho.

  139. Stricter gun control by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I believe we have a right to own guns, and I believe that many proposed gun laws lack common sense.

    That being said, I'm on board with stricter gun laws. We can't just speak to a whole classification of weapons "Assault weapons" because it'll lead to loopholes, and we can't just apply laws to some citizens (cops can be corrupt).

    If we're going to make a positive movement in gun ownership, it needs to be specific, smart and targeted. And it can't just be a form of control, it has to be applied across the board. If specific guns really are bad, ban the manufacture in the first place. Once the gun is made, all it takes is one corrupt "licensed person" to distribute to another "unlicensed person". If we don't need a weapon then neither do police. They probably kill too many people (according to the news, not saying I believe this or not) today anyway. But reassure people that not all guns are being targeted. Just the unnecessary ones. MOST people are okay with not owning a grenade launcher.

    And we can't just make it illegal to own a gun if you have mental health problems. We need to address mental health, and if you think you should but you're afraid of taking action, the threat of losing more rights certainly isn't a push in the right direction.

    1. Re:Stricter gun control by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      The gun isn't the problem. Never was. This argument goes back past Roman times with weapons. Same outcomes. It's not the weapon, it has no brains, doesn't harm anyone. It's the person with that weapon. The social problems that led them to think this is ok. Things our society doesn't want to get involved in because you have to tell people to in some cases "shut the fuck up." "You really are an asshole." "White people are not to blame, you are." "You really are where you should be in society." "No, it's not ok to lie and create drama." The Political Correctness BS. You know, a lot of the ethics they used to teach.

      One big problem is that we decided in the 1970s to empty the asylums. Politicians though it was great - a lot of money to spend on votes! Well here we are.

  140. Re:come and take them. please. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the media hypes it up after a school shooting, but they live on disaster.

    Yeah, people want to talk about guns right after a shooting to control the narrative. What a coincidence! Instead, you and the NRA wants the control the narrative by only "allowing" talk of gun control when there has been no recent tragedy so you can say "see everything is fine, no need to change anything."

    How are those two things any different?

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  141. Re:come and take them. please. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I think you just proved the point.

    Look how many times you talk about "rural" and "hunting". How many household in 1950's were sporting handguns?

    The problems are guns, predominately handguns, in urban areas. Hunting guns in rural areas aren't really the issue of "gun culture".

    My Dad did basically the same thing, attended a one room school, and the village he lived in so small that the only thing to do was hunt and fish, so you started off very young. I remember him telling me about saving like 3$ (or something very low anyway) to buy a single shot 20 gauge shotgun from Sears as the first gun he owned (and still has). My dad took me hunting probably when I was 12 or earlier. I don't hunt now or own any guns as I live in an urban area...

    Similarly to handguns, an AR-15 with a 30 round clip isn't something you need for hunting. In Canada simple regulation like limiting clip size to 5 rounds and restricting handguns seems pretty common sense. I mean if you are actually hunting, and you miss the first 5 shots at whatever you're firing at, you probably aren't going to get it anyway with the next 25 rounds either....

  142. Re:come and take them. please. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    In what way is the NRA controlling the narrative? How exactly can they possibly influence an entire media industry and makes it's money on sensationalize this tragedy with the explicit aim of trying to take down their group by any means they can? You're giving the NRA way more power than it really has.

  143. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  144. Re:come and take them. please. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    > I assume you attribute this to your strict gun laws?

    Not at all. I attribute it to the pervasive growth of the small-minded, passive-aggressive, submissive attitude that has now completely taken over in the UK, and has turned Brits from a strong-minded people that successfully stood together against incredible odds in WW2, into a bunch of spineless peecee muppets that welcome being totally nannied by an overly controlling system, and can't be bothered to get off their own asses and actually do anything positive, so just sit around and whine about everything all all the time, while still expecting to be fed, housed, educated and medically cared for with welfare handouts from the very same government/society they are criticising.

    >> LOL did you leave the UK voluntarily or were you kicked out for being a twat?

    I voluntarily left because back then I could see the UK becoming exactly the giant mess that it is today. If you haven't lived outside the UK recently at least for a while, It's understandable if you truly can't see it and think I'm bullshitting, In which case I urge you to not take my word for it, but see it for yourself by getting out and living in a better country for a while, and looking back at the UK from the outside. You'll then see exactly what I mean for yourself.

  145. Re:come and take them. please. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    yes, but its then not just the start of a mass shooting is it?

    > before getting shot by a good guy with a gun
    Maybe you should try telling the cops to put their guns down too.

  146. Re:come and take them. please. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Baloney. The police and the military are VERY heavily armed crowds too. Just being told you're the good guy, putting a badge on, learning how to march and doesn't change actual human psychology.